On Apr 15, 12:26*pm, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Quiet, if I was on the far side I'd take the gap behind the ped, but
slow to make sure she was way over the centre line before going
through...

But - even though you don't want different rules of the road for cyclists
to everybody else - you'd have a problem if somebody in a car or on a
motorbike did exactly that.

Yes. If I approached the crossing in my car I would wait for the green
light and would expect other drivers to do the same.

On Apr 15, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is.

No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing
way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at
all times.

There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to
cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you
to do exactly that.

I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way
is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress.

I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the
rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too.
And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are.

What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not
making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be
or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think
you can take me or not is immaterial.

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:40 +0100
Conor wrote:
While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers
arn't immune from forgetting to indicate.

It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the
first exit.

when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't
forget to indicate.


AND

If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate,

You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew.

B2003

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:40 +0100
Conor wrote:
While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do
truckers
arn't immune from forgetting to indicate.

It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the
first exit.

when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't
forget to indicate.


AND

If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate,

You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew.

I don't think you *have* to indicate if you are turning. It's a courtesy and
an *indication* of intent

Marz wrote:

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

Filthy is full of hot air and BS. Don't take him too seriously.

Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote:

I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to
having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars,
but he is remarkably open and honest.

He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers
that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a
vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts.

But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it.

The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others
does not make him "open and honest".

Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed
and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest".

Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to
the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum
crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word
that Robertson says.

mileburner wrote:

Marz wrote:

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

Filthy is full of hot air and BS. Don't take him too seriously.

Heavens above, another two-wheeled loser.

Marz wrote:

What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not
making new rules,

What your walnut sized brain seems to fail to comprehend is that you are
making your own rules. I'm all for anarchy, which is what you seem to
want. What you fail to realise is that in an anarchy *everyone* is a
policeman and those who try to unilaterally impose their rules on
society will be resisted by a significant number.

I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it
as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is
immaterial.

It's not "think" sonny.

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for
that walnut-sized cat brain you have.

On Apr 15, 6:56*pm, Marz wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:



Marz wrote:

For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is.

No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing
way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at
all times.

There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to
cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you
to do exactly that.

I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way
is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress.

I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the
rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too..
And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are.

What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not
making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be
or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think
you can take me or not is immaterial.

Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack
someone who infringes a traffic law.

Ah, another ****wit cyclist who thinks he is above the law.
Is he typical or is he the type that give others a bad name?

Francis

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Andy Leighton gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Of course a cyclist should be considerate and not unduly hold up a
stream of traffic but it should be up to the cyclist to decide when it
is safe and appropriate to move to secondary position.

...by moving towards the left to make it easy for the other traffic to
pass?

I'm not reading "should keep over to the left" as advocating cycling in
the gutter, merely being considerate and not holding up other traffic.

The problem is the small minority of cyclists who *don't* move over even
when it is safe to do so. They seem to want drivers to give them even more
clearance than a car would give the offside of another car that they were
overtaking - in other words for a car to cross completely onto the opposite
side of the road. I realise that cyclists need a bit more room than you'd
give a car because of the problem of being sucked into the slipstream -
especially when it is an HGV or bus that is overtaking, but that does not
excuse riding two abreast when there are cars queuing behind. I got stuck
behind two cyclists who were on a road which is wide enough for two cars to
pass with one car (in one direction *or* the other) to overtake. They
thought it was clever to ride with one in the gutter and the other right
next to the centre line, with almost a car-width of space between them. Very
selfish, when if they had ridden in signle file, even in the centre of the
lane, there would have been plenty of space for a car to have overtaken
while still allowing room for an oncoming car.