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.

Colin Reed wrote:

The recent posts from "Marz", who to me at least is a new one, have
suggested that he would do more damage to a ped who deliberately shoulder
charged him than he would suffer himself. Is this what you refer to as
"terrorising pedestrians"?

No, I refer to his admission that he barrels through pedestrians on
crossings, even ignoring red lights to do so. And that he thinks it
quite appropriate to force his way between the pedestrians who have a
right to use the crossing when he does not.

But it's nice to see the cyclists either (a) closing ranks or (b)
refusing to see things from the point of the view of the vulnerable road
user.

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.

Adrian wrote:

Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between
pedestrians?

He's already indicated that is the case:

"But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap
between and the next person."

Message-ID:

In article , says...

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.

AND

If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate,
would have been in the same lane and the trailer would have followed
the same path.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

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.

Roger Thorpe

On Apr 15, 11:10*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If
there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not
quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a
liar.
Quiet doesn't have to mean empty.

Ah. So you freely admit that you will cycle across a pedestrian crossing
- and you've previously used the figure of 20mph - even if it's in use by
pedestrians at the time, as long as you deem it to be "quiet".

Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between
pedestrians?

Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers.

I won't.

Anybody who, whilst in charge of ANY vehicle, goes through a red light is
- at best - not ****ing looking.

If they do so _deliberately_, in the full knowledge that it's red and
that there's pedestrians on the crossing, then they should be charged
with dangerous driving. Not careless driving.

If they then boast about and try to justify it, then they're a prize ****
of the highest order.

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...

http://www.edu.dudley.gov.uk/roadsaf.../pelican_1.JPG

Way too busy (I know, wrong sort of crossing)...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ng_2004-01.jpg


In fact you could just add one person to the first picture, crossing
the other way and my clear gap is gone.

Again not trying to justify this to anyone else 'cept myself.

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.

Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, thaksin wrote:
Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any
cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man.
Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't
want to shoulder charge me mate!
And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian crossing
being used by pedestrians without even slowing?
No, prat.
sigh
A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma.
You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't you?
Actually yes
Thought so.
but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****!
Once again, that's dash dash space.
Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old
lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately -
because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed.
See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole!
See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you?
Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to
be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you
realised what a tit you'd made yourself look?
No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the
law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to
good for him.
You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings
and I'm pointing out you're wrong.
Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve
your own person?
Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's perfectly
capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment about
'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the widely-held
and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be permitted to
vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put them at risk. So:
cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in attacking car (apparently).
ped feels at risk from cyclist = justified in attacking cyclist. See?
All makes sense now

Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a
double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's
a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number
plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in
seconds.

Ummmm, ********. Sorry, but it is. The _car_ performing this illegal
man-nooo-ver is suitably equipped with a method of tracing and
penalising the responsible person. Any person can, and many in URC
allegedly _do_, report said vehicle with the precision necessary to
identify later. Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember
even _hearing of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant
cyclist, AND lets remember that said cyclist has no identifying mark so
that any random member of the public can report him (or plod, for that
matter). "Umm, he had a red jersey on a mountain bike" isn't exactly
going to find him later, is it?

Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore
able to empathise with one road user than the other?

Its not possible to come up with a reason for it, since we've just shown
that it doesn't exist.

thaksin gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember even _hearing
of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant cyclist

waves I have. Kinda.

Baker St, London - some arrogant ****bubble tried to go tonking at
undiminished speed through red lights and across a pedestrian crossing.
Except it was a bit full of pedestrians. One of whom, a largish chap -
straight-armed the ****wit. Once Marz untangled himself from his bicycle
and got up, he came charging into the crowd swinging at anybody and
everybody whilst hurling abuse.

As the plastic plods came running, I had the great and personal pleasure
of telling one of them exactly what had precipitated the incident.

He was last seen on the pavement being sat on by one of them whilst the
other handcuffed him. Much chuckling was heard.