In article , says...
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.

Irrelevent.


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 see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path.



--
Conor

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

Roger Thorpe wrote:

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

I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks
that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer
might be.

He quite openly boasted about it here on uk.transport. He seemed to find
it very funny, and he had the perfect excuse "everyone does it". I've
never seen him utter a word of regret.

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".

No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he regrets
that action,

Very Christian. However I think that several Emperors had the right
attitude to Christian attitudes. And since I've never seen him utter a
word of regret and I have seen him boast about his continuing excessive
drinking, I don't see any sign of regret on the horizon.

but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of
trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him.

He deserves beating with something bigger than a stick. Can I send a
virtual pick-axe handle to his detractors?

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:52:59 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

snip


At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted
attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it,


I don't thinks that the Taylor and Chapman realise the harm they do -
I don't think they do it intentionally.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

In article ,
(Mortimer) wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a
pedestrian crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that
these always had a flashing amber phase between red and green,
during which it was legal for cars to set off or drive across
providing the crossing was clear of pedestrians. I was surprised
the other day to find a pedestrian-only crossing where the lights
went to solid amber instead of flashing amber.

There are lots like that in Liverpool - all the way along the A59
(Scotland Road and extensions) for example.

Ah. OK. How do the installers decide which type of pedestrian
lights to install and how do road users know which type are being
used - apart from by waiting for the amber to go out if it is a
flashing pedestrian type of lights or to stay on if it is a
vehicle-junction type of lights?

Why not make it simple and say *all* pedestrian lights have a
flashing phase and *no* vehicle-junction lights have a flashing
phase?

It's the other way round. Lights with flashing phases are obsolescent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Steve Firth
writes
I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for
that walnut-sized cat brain you have.
Take that back, I like cats and I'm sure their brain is larger than a
walnut, now Marz is a different matter.
--
Clive

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:43 -0700 (PDT),
francis wrote:
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?

At least two cyclists (ok, one of them is me) have called him an idiot or
worse on this thread. Anyone who uses their vehicle in a careless,
dangerous or intimidatory manner should be dealt with to the full extent
of the law. You make up your own mind.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Closing ranks in the way that I wrote "The general attitude and content of
Marz's posts
about red light jumping at non-busy crossings have already suggested that he
may be a bit of an arse, and probably thought of one by many URC regulars. "
and then you snipped it from your reply you mean? I think that says far
more about how you want cyclists to behave rather than how they/we do.

Colin

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

There's nothing inherently "dangerous" about HGVs. They don't hide
behind traffic lights before jumping out to savage innocent cyclists.

They only pose a danger to those who don't think whilst around them.

Sorry, they are dangerous because they either don't have under-run
protection like other vehicles or it provides inadequate protection.
I've seen too many entirely innocent cyclists and pedestrians killed
by them, like one tourist pedestrian on the pavement on a gently
curved junction (so no excuse for mounting the kerb) in central
Cambridge a year or two back.

That's still not the vehicle's fault, though.

Of course it is. A properly designed vehicle that gets too close to
vulnerable road users wouldn't drag them under its wheels and kill them!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:28:51 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this
country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the
case.

Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I
presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses
somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country?

Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to
where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly
truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC).

Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom.

They are, but Sotland and England are different countries.

Scotland fails to meet 6 of the 8 criteria of being a country.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm

The clue is in the the fact that they have different names

Is of no significance. they can call it "Caledonia" if they like.

and different legal structures.

Ditto.

While laws governing Scotland are passed in England Scotland cannot be
a country.

Derek

Clive gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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

Take that back, I like cats and I'm sure their brain is larger than a
walnut, now Marz is a different matter.

I have a cat sat on my lap at the moment, preventing me from reaching the
laptop easily. Even by cat standards, this gormless fluffbucket is thick
as two short planks.

However, even it pities Marz.