|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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? |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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! |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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/ -- Bod |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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. You can trim, delete and quote out of context all you like. It won't make you any less silly. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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! |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 11:40:16 GMT, JNugent
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 You can trim, delete and quote out of context all you like. It won't make you any less silly. Is this the 5 year argument or the full decade? -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
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. Â* 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. If you bothered to read the explanation I provided, you'd understand why. -- Bod |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 07:56 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 08:11 PM |
Mummy, what is it??? | saam | Unicycling | 27 | August 2nd 06 06:00 PM |