On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/


Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling",
rather than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an offence.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be
up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get from
a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
all be there.

[* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist".
The correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a
motorbike.]

I rarely use the term "motorist". Look up the history. Oh, you don't
keep any. A bicycle or horse is also controlled by a rider.

"Motorist" is such an oddly old-fashioned term, harking back to a time
when cars were the preserve of the aristocracy and men with handlebar
moustaches and cravats.

No-one normal ever uses the word outside the world of the press cub
reporter and sub-editor.