Nice to see cyclists fighting back.

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

On 24/09/2013 14:17, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:24:31 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:17, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 13:09, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...


I hope the extra cost of a reinforced frame is coming out of your
pocket.

As I have tried oh so patiently to explain to you on more than one
occasion, the majority of my travel needs are met by my bike.

Please don't make me look for the post where you admitted that you
"hardly cycle any more".

Compared to when I was doing 200 miles a week for leisure, I hardly
cycle any more.

Riggghhhhtt..

You really are a thick ****, aren't you. I was reading a few months
ago about a group of drivers from Virgin trains who set off from
Manchester at 5am to London on a charity ride and caught a train back
the same day at about 22.00. 200 miles in a week is challenging, but
easy to achieve for most moderately fit cyclist. A lot of cyclists can
do 100 miles in a morning.

This is preposterous. After a hearty breakfast and ensuring panniers are
properly loaded one should reckon on a 10am start. Pausing only for a
modest 2 hour luncheon at noon, one will need to arrive at ones
destination by 5pm for tea. One must also make allowances for any pubs
one encounters 'en route'. So I suggest that at an average 15mph, one
can travel 65 miles in a day. This will allow a trip between London and
Cambridge. (Obviously your man-servant will have to bring the motor and
punt).

Less of the expletives please.


So I can't tell you to go **** yourself, you pompous little ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and foul
language.

On 25/09/2013 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2013 23:47, Brian R0bertson wrote:

On 24/09/2013 01:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over
your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are
driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their
ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to
think.
Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.

Had I said the same thing about deaf cyclist you would have had a
contrary opinion, no doubt.

The same thing applies to drivers and riders. There is no requirement to
be able to hear anything.

The reason why loud music is a problem is not that it drowns out traffic
noise, but that for some drivers and riders, it creates a psychological,
and perhaps a physiological, elation effect and may cause them to be
reckless or careless.

Fair enough. I would be quite happy to see listening to music banned in
cars. Likewise about smoking. And, of course, using a mobile phone
should be an automatic 12 month ban and £1k fine.

On 24/09/2013 01:19, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:43, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

These are very minor "crimes", if indeed any crime has been committed.
Therefore we must logically assume that cyclists film and report their
friends and neighbours for other petty alleged crimes like leaving
their
bin on the pavement on the wrong day, or using a hosepipe during a
ban.
There's nothing to convince me that a cyclist wearing a ****-cam to
catch other people's transgressions while he's cycling, doesn't have
the
same mentality during the rest of his day. Sad, petty losers whose
only
joy is to make trouble for other people. And trainspotting.

Answer the question. Would you report a drunk driver or would you not?

Apples and oranges. Try to think of an example of behaviour that is
roughly equivalent to calling someone a ****** on Twitter and I'll
respond.

No, I want to know if you would report someone for drink driving. That
is an issue that effects us all.

Some more than others, eh?

Protecting drunk drivers now, huh?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...

"Catrap" considered Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:08:55
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 23/09/2013 20:54, Phil W Lee wrote:


The overwhelming majority of shopping precincts and malls do not
provide free car parking (at least this side of the Atlantic).

Just how wrong is it possible for you to be?

Of course, you'll wriggle and claim that any old parade of suburban
shops near a railways station is a "shopping mall".

Yes, but he doesn't realise that even if he were right, which he's not -
that would actually strengthen the case.
Imagine, paying for parking but STILL preferring the out of town centre
with
ample spaces to the dying high street where you have to struggle to park at
all.
I'm sure he never thinks through what he's saying.

Since facts are clearly something which evade you, it's pointless
arguing. with you.

Welcome to my kf.

Predictable - always the answer from a loser.

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

On 24/09/2013 01:19, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:43, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

These are very minor "crimes", if indeed any crime has been committed.
Therefore we must logically assume that cyclists film and report their
friends and neighbours for other petty alleged crimes like leaving
their
bin on the pavement on the wrong day, or using a hosepipe during a
ban.
There's nothing to convince me that a cyclist wearing a ****-cam to
catch other people's transgressions while he's cycling, doesn't have
the
same mentality during the rest of his day. Sad, petty losers whose
only
joy is to make trouble for other people. And trainspotting.

Answer the question. Would you report a drunk driver or would you not?

Apples and oranges. Try to think of an example of behaviour that is
roughly equivalent to calling someone a ****** on Twitter and I'll
respond.

No, I want to know if you would report someone for drink driving. That
is an issue that effects us all.

Some more than others, eh?

Protecting drunk drivers now, huh?

What's your take on drunk cyclists, or train drivers?

On 25/09/2013 01:45, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Catrap" considered Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:08:55
+0100 the perfect time to write:



"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 23/09/2013 20:54, Phil W Lee wrote:


The overwhelming majority of shopping precincts and malls do not
provide free car parking (at least this side of the Atlantic).

Just how wrong is it possible for you to be?

Of course, you'll wriggle and claim that any old parade of suburban
shops near a railways station is a "shopping mall".

Yes, but he doesn't realise that even if he were right, which he's not -
that would actually strengthen the case.
Imagine, paying for parking but STILL preferring the out of town centre with
ample spaces to the dying high street where you have to struggle to park at
all.
I'm sure he never thinks through what he's saying.

Since facts are clearly something which evade you, it's pointless
arguing. with you.

Welcome to my kf.



Laa, laaa, la, la la, I can't hear you.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:34:59 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

On 24/09/2013 14:17, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:24:31 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:17, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 13:09, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...


I hope the extra cost of a reinforced frame is coming out of your
pocket.

As I have tried oh so patiently to explain to you on more than one
occasion, the majority of my travel needs are met by my bike.

Please don't make me look for the post where you admitted that you
"hardly cycle any more".

Compared to when I was doing 200 miles a week for leisure, I hardly
cycle any more.

Riggghhhhtt..

You really are a thick ****, aren't you. I was reading a few months
ago about a group of drivers from Virgin trains who set off from
Manchester at 5am to London on a charity ride and caught a train back
the same day at about 22.00. 200 miles in a week is challenging, but
easy to achieve for most moderately fit cyclist. A lot of cyclists can
do 100 miles in a morning.

This is preposterous. After a hearty breakfast and ensuring panniers
are properly loaded one should reckon on a 10am start. Pausing only for
a modest 2 hour luncheon at noon, one will need to arrive at ones
destination by 5pm for tea. One must also make allowances for any pubs
one encounters 'en route'. So I suggest that at an average 15mph, one
can travel 65 miles in a day. This will allow a trip between London and
Cambridge. (Obviously your man-servant will have to bring the motor and
punt).

Less of the expletives please.


So I can't tell you to go **** yourself, you pompous little ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and
foul language.

Pot kettle black.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:34:59 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

On 24/09/2013 14:17, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:24:31 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:17, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 13:09, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...


I hope the extra cost of a reinforced frame is coming out of your
pocket.

As I have tried oh so patiently to explain to you on more than one
occasion, the majority of my travel needs are met by my bike.

Please don't make me look for the post where you admitted that you
"hardly cycle any more".

Compared to when I was doing 200 miles a week for leisure, I hardly
cycle any more.

Riggghhhhtt..

You really are a thick ****, aren't you. I was reading a few months
ago about a group of drivers from Virgin trains who set off from
Manchester at 5am to London on a charity ride and caught a train back
the same day at about 22.00. 200 miles in a week is challenging, but
easy to achieve for most moderately fit cyclist. A lot of cyclists can
do 100 miles in a morning.

This is preposterous. After a hearty breakfast and ensuring panniers
are properly loaded one should reckon on a 10am start. Pausing only for
a modest 2 hour luncheon at noon, one will need to arrive at ones
destination by 5pm for tea. One must also make allowances for any pubs
one encounters 'en route'. So I suggest that at an average 15mph, one
can travel 65 miles in a day. This will allow a trip between London and
Cambridge. (Obviously your man-servant will have to bring the motor and
punt).

Less of the expletives please.


So I can't tell you to go **** yourself, you pompous little ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and
foul language.

Pot kettle black.

Once again, your post is making as much sense as any of your other posts. Do
you have a special button on your keyboard that generates random glib
phrases?

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2013 23:47, Brian R0bertson wrote:

On 24/09/2013 01:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over
your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are
driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their
ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and
a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to
think.
Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if
profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.

Had I said the same thing about deaf cyclist you would have had a
contrary opinion, no doubt.

The same thing applies to drivers and riders. There is no requirement to
be able to hear anything.

The reason why loud music is a problem is not that it drowns out traffic
noise, but that for some drivers and riders, it creates a psychological,
and perhaps a physiological, elation effect and may cause them to be
reckless or careless.

Fair enough. I would be quite happy to see listening to music banned in
cars. Likewise about smoking. And, of course, using a mobile phone should
be an automatic 12 month ban and £1k fine.

I agree with you. Only this evening on the way back from work, a van driver
pulled out into my path while I was on a small roundabout. All I could see
was the right side of his face with a phone clamped against it. As a matter
of course, I always alert the person on the other end of the phone
connection that the driver is being an idiot by sounding my horn.

I would welcome more severe punishments for drivers blatently flouting the
law in this way. Hand amputation springs to mind!

On 25/09/2013 18:52, John Benn wrote:
"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 24/09/2013 23:47, Brian R0bertson wrote:

On 24/09/2013 01:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over
your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are
driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their
ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and
a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to
think.
Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if
profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.

Had I said the same thing about deaf cyclist you would have had a
contrary opinion, no doubt.

The same thing applies to drivers and riders. There is no requirement to
be able to hear anything.

The reason why loud music is a problem is not that it drowns out traffic
noise, but that for some drivers and riders, it creates a psychological,
and perhaps a physiological, elation effect and may cause them to be
reckless or careless.

Fair enough. I would be quite happy to see listening to music banned in
cars. Likewise about smoking. And, of course, using a mobile phone should
be an automatic 12 month ban and £1k fine.

I agree with you. Only this evening on the way back from work, a van driver
pulled out into my path while I was on a small roundabout. All I could see
was the right side of his face with a phone clamped against it. As a matter
of course, I always alert the person on the other end of the phone
connection that the driver is being an idiot by sounding my horn.

I would welcome more severe punishments for drivers blatently flouting the
law in this way. Hand amputation springs to mind!



Should I start doing the same to cyclists using the phone? some might
fall off in shock I expect.