RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 31, 2:30*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:18*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.

http://velonews.com/article/99513

http://velonews.com/article/99685/la...osing-argument...

I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily
basis.

It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the
reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same
impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs.

I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a
paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it
quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but
innocent and could easily end up being deadly.

The cyclists deserved what they got.

First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? *A bike can
stop faster than a car.

Where exactly does reaction time enter into your non-existent math
skills analysis? Does expectation play any part in reaction time?

Of course it does. The person behind is always suppose to expect it. It's
called being attentive.



Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride
2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes
you.

If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your
fault. *I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different.

You don't see many things. Do you agree with the assessment of the
defense douchebag that a bike is inherently stable (at any speed (with
apologies to Ralph "Magilla is a twit" Nader)?

Yes, I agree that a bike is stable.


Thanks,

Magilla