On 16/07/2019 18:58, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2019 16:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/07/2019 13:22, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2019 08:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/07/2019 01:58, JNugent wrote:

Cyclists clearly ought to boycott the Peak District and everywhere
else where such traps are thought to have been laid

Again, you're defending the people that lay the traps, with the old
"if they didn't cycle there they wouldn't get hurt".

Quite the reverse.

You don't understand plain English words like "boycott".

Yes. It would mean not cycling there.

That's right: not dignifying the area with your presence.

That'll teach 'em.

Won't it?

You're defending the people that lay the traps, with the old
"if they didn't cycle there they wouldn't get hurt".

as well as everywhere where cyclists have been killed in traffic
accidents which have ocurred when they did something entirely
innocent like riding straight through a red traffic light.

Perhaps you would enlighten us as to how many get killed by red lights.

Do you think that's funny?

No. How many?

No response. No surprise.

And if any are, you're obviously completely blind to the difference
between being harmed by one's own act and being harmed by someone
else's act.

Riding through a red traffic light and collidingÂ* with a vehicle
which is passing through the junction lawfully is indeed "being
harmed by one's own act".

It is. I never suggested otherwise.

When you answered:

QUOTE:
... cyclists have been killed in traffic accidents [where] they did
something entirely innocent like riding straight through a red traffic
light...
ENDQUOTE

...by raising the prospect of being "harmed by someone else's act", even
though the context was completely focused upon a cyclist being harmed by
the cyclists's own act.

Gosh, the moaning we get from you when anybody else snips, even when it
is no longer relevant.

There's no point trying to explain it to you.