A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 15th 19, 03:04 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 15/12/2019 13:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/12/2019 11:41, JNugent wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it
is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with
bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is
fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an
absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper
context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped;
now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I
don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm
afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you
goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to
comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left
signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with
traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an
absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly
an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not
apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a
pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will
vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this
time
either!

Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

Actually, slick tyres on a bicycle grip better than ones with
treads. They are also better in the wet.
Explanation:
https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/


A policeman of my acquaintance told me that quite a few drivers of
beaten-up old bangers try that one on when a on-road vehicle check
reveals defective tyres.

I said bicycles, NOT cars etc.


I am well aware of it.

Nothing I said contradicts anything you said, so why do you feel a need
to remark on it?

If you bothered to read the explanation I provided, you'd understand why.


I have heard of the issue surrounding the differences between proper
tyres and specialised tyres for use on private land. It is of little
importance.

Ads
  #52  
Old December 15th 19, 05:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 11:41:40 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?

You are lying (again).

I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute
offence).

You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win
honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you?

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?

Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield.

TRANSLATION:

Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time
either!


Did you or did you not say:-
"I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.
That is a contextless statement.

You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like.

He just needs to have the last word! He is never wrong, ever!


I know and it's rather sad. I once continued one of these pointless discussions with Nugent to see how long it would be until he gave up in frustration, it took 3 months.
  #53  
Old December 16th 19, 10:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss



...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are
the stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules
are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of
fools", one has wonder where you think you place
yourself.


I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.


But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without
sin cast the first stone",


Of course I am.

which gives carte blanche to criminals.


Don't confuse road conduct and crime.

...

You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material
factor.


That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald
tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.


There are no signs with red borders.

Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.

...

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed
safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?


You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence,
you include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a
factor.


Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.


Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at
least 95%.

Apart from a few exceptions, road rules merely summarise in a few words
what skilled and experienced road users naturally do (not should do) in
a few common situations.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav
and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.


Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply to
him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not to
confront him about the offence?


I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other
trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac.

He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end
up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he
should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so
confrontational.


When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you
levitation is not an option.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling".


Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.


Of course I won't.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually
only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you
know you want to...

You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act,
then the act is being condoned.


Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence
is hypocrisy. You know that already.


Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.

And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".


Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions.
We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible.
Even you.


Impartial? Oh dear.
  #54  
Old December 17th 19, 03:57 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss



...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are
the stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules
are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of
fools", one has wonder where you think you place
yourself.


I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.


But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is
without sin cast the first stone",


Of course I am.

which gives carte blanche to criminals.


Don't confuse road conduct and crime.


"Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and crime.

...

You're just claiming that going round the island was the only
material factor.


That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a
bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.


There are no signs with red borders.


There don't have to be. A keep left bollard does that job. And there is
one at either end of the traffic island ignored by that chav on a bike.

Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.

...

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed
safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?

You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence,
you include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a
factor.


Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.


Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at
least 95%.


You need that AND you need to obey the law. Only chavs think the law
doesn't apply to them.

Apart from a few exceptions, road rules merely summarise in a few words
what skilled and experienced road users naturally do (not should do) in
a few common situations.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav
and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.


Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply
to him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not
to confront him about the offence?


I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other
trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac.


Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign
directing traffic to its left.

He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end
up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that
he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being
so confrontational.


When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you
levitation is not an option.


No collision took place.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling".


Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.


Of course I won't.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually
only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive...
you know you want to...


Ah... no response.

You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act,
then the act is being condoned.


Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged
offence is hypocrisy. You know that already.


Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.


That has nothing to do with it.

That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation of
the highway.

And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists.


Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let he
who is without...").

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".


Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of
intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as
possible. Even you.


Impartial? Oh dear.


Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that or not.
  #55  
Old December 17th 19, 10:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.


Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres
an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and
I don't mean damaged to the canvass.


Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre.
Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that in
Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for several
months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is easy to blame
"cyclists" for all the world's problems.
  #56  
Old December 17th 19, 12:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote:

Do you sleep?

On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:


But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is
without sin cast the first stone",


Of course I am.

which gives carte blanche to criminals.


Don't confuse road conduct and crime.


"Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and
crime.


Yes, you love to believe that a burglar (for instance) using a bicycle
for transport has some direct connection to cycling.


Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.


Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement.
That's at least 95%.


You need that AND you need to obey the law.


Then you agree that obedience gives nowhere near your previously stated 90%.

Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them.


Chavs don't think.


I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other
trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac.


Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign
directing traffic to its left.


Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.


He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen
and end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him
would be that he should stop trying to impersonate a police
officer and stop being so confrontational.


When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you
levitation is not an option.


No collision took place.


A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable.
Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know
this.


You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a
"cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant
to "cycling".

Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.


Of course I won't.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but
usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other
respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja
archive... you know you want to...


Ah... no response.


I would only find things that reinforce my view. (Do you really believe
otherwise?) You have to change your approach and attitude from here on
if you want to change the perception others have of you.


You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an
act, then the act is being condoned.

Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged
offence is hypocrisy. You know that already.


Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.


That has nothing to do with it.

That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation
of the highway.


It is noticeable that nowhere have you applied 'chav' to the driver.


And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about
cyclists.


Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let
he who is without...").


It is plain enough. Use your amazing telepathic ability if you are
having trouble.


Why should anybody take your version of "advice".

Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of
intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as
safely as possible. Even you.


Impartial? Oh dear.


Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that
or not.


You have now agreed that skill and judgement are the primary
requirements for safety.
  #57  
Old December 17th 19, 01:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote:

Do you sleep?


I don't care to keep navvies' hours. I never have.

On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:


But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is
without sin cast the first stone",

Of course I am.

which gives carte blanche to criminals.

Don't confuse road conduct and crime.


"Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and
crime.


Yes, you love to believe that a burglar (for instance) using a bicycle
for transport has some direct connection to cycling.


That's a silly wriggle, without meaning or import.

Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.

Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's
at least 95%.


You need that AND you need to obey the law.


Then you agree that obedience gives nowhere near your previously stated
90%.


Obey the law (all of it, not just the bits you like) and the Highway
Code and you'll be 90% of the way there.

No precaution you are prepared to take can stop a random meteorite
striking you as you cycle along the Hackney Road, of course.

Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them.


Chavs don't think.


Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet?

I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other
trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac.


Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign
directing traffic to its left.


Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.


It makes no difference. The cyclist still committed the same, visible,
obvious offence, but the loony cyclist with the camera took no exception
to that. For some reason.

He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and
end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be
that he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop
being so confrontational.

When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you
levitation is not an option.


No collision took place.


A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable.
Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know
this.


We are all on a collision course 100% of the time, every time we use the
road in any way at all. The trick is in knowing how to change direction
and speed at the relavent time(s).

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist"
over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling".


Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.

Of course I won't.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but
usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive...
you know you want to...


Ah... no response.


I would only find things that reinforce my view. (Do you really believe
otherwise?) You have to change your approach and attitude from here on
if you want to change the perception others have of you.


Aha... only a defensive response because you know that the Deja archive
won'tsupport you.

You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act,
then the act is being condoned.

Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged
offence is hypocrisy. You know that already.

Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.


That has nothing to do with it.

That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation
of the highway.


It is noticeable that nowhere have you applied 'chav' to the driver.


You saw and heard him. The description would clearly not apply. That is
not to say that no chavs drive.

And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists.


Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let
he who is without...").


It is plain enough. Use your amazing telepathic ability if you are
having trouble.


That's alright. I understand that you are floundering and won't seek to
make that worse.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".

Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of
intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely
as possible. Even you.

Impartial? Oh dear.


Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that or
not.


You have now agreed that skill and judgement are the primary
requirements for safety.


I have not. We all are entitled to expect that other road users will
obey the law and thus behave in a defined and predictable way.
  #58  
Old December 17th 19, 01:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 17/12/2019 09:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.


Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres
an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and
I don't mean damaged to the canvass.


Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre.


I did not say that. You are lying again.

I said that like driving (DRIVING) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with highway signage is an absolute offence.

Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that in
Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for several
months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is easy to blame
"cyclists" for all the world's problems.


Argument is really not your long suit, is it?
  #59  
Old December 17th 19, 01:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 17/12/2019 12:09, JNugent wrote:

On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote:


A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable.
Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't
know this.


We are all on a collision course 100% of the time, every time we use the
road in any way at all. The trick is in knowing how to change direction
and speed at the relavent time(s).


Aaghh...

"relevant".
  #60  
Old December 17th 19, 05:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 17/12/2019 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/12/2019 09:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:


I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is
an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald
tyres an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle
tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass.


Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre.


I did not say that. You are lying again.


Well, my reply was to a poster that had misinterpreted your words.

I thought you would be grateful that I noted his error.

I said that like driving (DRIVING) with a bald tyre, failing to
comply with highway signage is an absolute offence...


Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that
in Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for
several months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is
easy to blame "cyclists" for all the world's problems.


Argument is really not your long suit, is it?


Shrug.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only in America: Cyclists are never at fault are they? Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 15 June 22nd 12 07:48 PM
Its the motorists fault when cyclists race on the road Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 12 March 3rd 12 08:56 PM
A report showing that 76 per cent of accidents are the cyclists fault, good case for training Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 17 October 22nd 11 11:57 AM
It was the cyclists' fault Justin[_3_] UK 1 December 9th 10 09:11 PM
Mummy, what is it??? saam Unicycling 27 August 2nd 06 06:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.