You really couldn't make it up...

"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have written)

Then I should have written "the implication made" instead of "saying"

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

The counterpoint to your complaints is completely relevant. If you are
genuinely concerned about road safety you should be posting your diatribe to
motoring groups.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 07:04:27 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 21/07/2013 11:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 01:05:50 +0100, JNugent

wrote:



As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think

that cyclists using the footway with consideration for other

footway users do much harm.



The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and

considerate aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm

either. But...



...of course there is a huge difference with an object designed to

kill and one designed for personal transport, so the analogy is

rubbish.



There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but

there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both

cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.



Since gun owners have to be vetted and licenced, why not introduce the same

for cyclists?

too many with brains that still function naturally, they won't fall for it.

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have
written)

Then I should have written "the implication made" instead of "saying"

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

The counterpoint to your complaints is completely relevant. If you are
genuinely concerned about road safety you should be posting your
diatribe to motoring groups.

I am concerned about the dangers that cyclists bring to themselves and other
road users, so a cycling group is the correct place to post.

"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have
written)

Then I should have written "the implication made" instead of "saying"

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

The counterpoint to your complaints is completely relevant. If you are
genuinely concerned about road safety you should be posting your
diatribe to motoring groups.

I am concerned about the dangers that cyclists bring to themselves and
other road users, so a cycling group is the correct place to post.

On the contrary, you're just a stirrer. You know something? With all the
nonsense you produce with I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.

On 22/07/2013 17:18, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have
written)

Then I should have written "the implication made" instead of "saying"

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

The counterpoint to your complaints is completely relevant. If you are
genuinely concerned about road safety you should be posting your
diatribe to motoring groups.

I am concerned about the dangers that cyclists bring to themselves and
other road users, so a cycling group is the correct place to post.

On the contrary, you're just a stirrer. You know something? With all the
nonsense you produce with I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.

"Well, your Worships, I only ran down the octogenarian shopper in the
frozen foods aisle of Tescos because I was fed up of it being pointed
out on usenet how selfish some cyclists are".

"Like my solicitor said I should say, I'm sorry the old gentleman's
dead". He also told me to say that it was never my intention to harm him".

"I hope you understand and let me off".

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 22/07/2013 17:18, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have
written)

Then I should have written "the implication made" instead of "saying"

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

The counterpoint to your complaints is completely relevant. If you are
genuinely concerned about road safety you should be posting your
diatribe to motoring groups.

I am concerned about the dangers that cyclists bring to themselves and
other road users, so a cycling group is the correct place to post.

On the contrary, you're just a stirrer. You know something? With all the
nonsense you produce with I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.

"Well, your Worships, I only ran down the octogenarian shopper in the
frozen foods aisle of Tescos because I was fed up of it being pointed out
on usenet how selfish some cyclists are".

Simple. Use the standard motorists excuse of "he jumped out without warning
and there was nothing I could do"

"Like my solicitor said I should say, I'm sorry the old gentleman's dead".
He also told me to say that it was never my intention to harm him".

"I hope you understand and let me off".

But then again, I don't have registration so apparently I would be
untraceable.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:18:34 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

snip

I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.




Excellent: just doing your bit to make sure that other road users appreciate
the mind-set of psycholists and recognise them for what they are.

Good plan.

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:48:38 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:57:42 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:11:57 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:00:18 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:37:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


For example, outside the Kebab shop just off the A20 in Lee is
particularly bad between 7pm and midnight. Eltham High Street is bad
daytime with delivery drivers. Residential areas seem to be worse
overnight than during the day. Outside schools can be diabolical
8.30am to 9.30am and again 3pm to 4pm, just at the most dangerous
times when children are meeting their parents.


I hope you don't mind if I return to cycling matters:

I have known of a cyclist who claimed that it was OK for him to exceed
the speed limit of 20mph out side schools - because the speed limit
does not apply to cyclists.

Mind you - he was not very bright. He came from Hull.

Is this another Pavlovian response?

Yes.

One can see the eyes light up, the tongue drool out, the blood flowing
from the tooth sockets in anticipation given the right stimulus.

The key words in this instance seem to be "schools" and "dangerous",
and the diatribe followed.

Yes in all its slimy streaky red and green viscous dripping glory.

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:18:34 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

snip

I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.


Excellent: just doing your bit to make sure that other road users
appreciate
the mind-set of psycholists and recognise them for what they are.

Good plan.

It would be extremely easy to abandon safety and responsibility (and
courtesy too) without breaking any laws. Since the latter is most important
consideration to some here, I hope you and they are satisfied.

On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:33:59 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:


"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:18:34 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

snip

I am actually getting less and less inclined to
cycle safely and responsibly amongst pedestrians. Not worth the bother.


Excellent: just doing your bit to make sure that other road users
appreciate
the mind-set of psycholists and recognise them for what they are.

Good plan.

It would be extremely easy to abandon safety and responsibility (and
courtesy too) without breaking any laws. Since the latter is most important
consideration to some here, I hope you and they are satisfied.



Typical psycholist: no need to be polite and courteous to other road users
(irrespective of whether any laws are being broken or not)