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

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 16th 18, 12:27 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a
danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me
for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are
vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of
death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands
that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles?


You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude
dealing with dangerous drivers.


Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words.

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when
it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists.


But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers".
Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The
casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor
vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a
motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they
expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or
experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care
when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within
us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take
care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not
see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that
he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in
scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the
ministrations of a sympathetic female.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who
did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I
can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light.
Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to
think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon
them.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 16th 18, 02:15 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Ophelia[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



"Incubus" wrote in message news
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are
a
danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to
abuse me
for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them
are
vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point
of
death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands
that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles?


You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not
preclude
dealing with dangerous drivers.


Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words.

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when
it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists.


But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers".
Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The
casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor
vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a
motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they
expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or
experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take
care
when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled
within
us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to
take
care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use
of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did
not
see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky
that
he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in
scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the
ministrations of a sympathetic female.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist
who
did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident
I
can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light.
Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely
to
think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is
upon
them.

==

Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see
cyclists continuing straight through!!!

How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in
trouble if they did get hit by a car?


  #3  
Old August 16th 18, 03:57 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote:


"Incubus" wrote in message news
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are
a
danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to
abuse me
for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them
are
vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point
of
death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands
that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles?

You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not
preclude
dealing with dangerous drivers.


Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words.

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when
it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists.


But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers".
Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The
casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor
vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a
motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they
expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or
experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take
care
when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled
within
us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to
take
care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use
of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did
not
see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky
that
he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in
scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the
ministrations of a sympathetic female.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist
who
did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident
I
can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light.
Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely
to
think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is
upon
them.

==

Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see
cyclists continuing straight through!!!

How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in
trouble if they did get hit by a car?


The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y


  #4  
Old August 16th 18, 07:03 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Ophelia[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



"Incubus" wrote in message news
On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote:


"Incubus" wrote in message news
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers
are
a
danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to
abuse me
for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of
them
are
vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point
of
death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands
that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles?

You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not
preclude
dealing with dangerous drivers.


Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words.

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when
it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists.


But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers".
Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The
casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor
vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a
motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they
expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or
experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take
care
when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled
within
us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to
take
care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the
use
of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did
not
see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky
that
he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in
scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the
ministrations of a sympathetic female.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist
who
did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one
incident
I
can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red
light.
Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely
to
think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is
upon
them.

==

Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I
see
cyclists continuing straight through!!!

How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in
trouble if they did get hit by a car?


The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

==

That would be very funny if it were not so apt!



  #5  
Old August 16th 18, 08:58 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,350
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 16/08/18 14:15, Ophelia wrote:

Yes, I agree!* Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I
see cyclists continuing straight through!!!

How the hell some cars miss them I don't know.


Because they miss the cars...?

Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car?


People have been whinging about it for long enough that if it is just a
theoretical problem, it is not worth worrying about. Alternatively it
has already happened and examination of official records would make
guesswork unnecessary.
  #6  
Old August 16th 18, 09:09 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,350
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car
drivers are a danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has
gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in
terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to
be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many
thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor
vehicles?

You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists
need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers.


Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of
words.


In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous".

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to
pedestrian safety from cyclists.


But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous
drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers -
in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of
drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not
irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by
a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas
they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to
observe or experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do
take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct
is instilled within us from a very early age.


Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again
that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the
road (*).

However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when
walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.


A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian
alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not
near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I
don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I
wonder what the difference is between us.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I
simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a
heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had
ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I
continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a
sympathetic female.


Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment.
Unlike a driver.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there
is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car
whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the
fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not
obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them.


And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than
all the others combined. I wonder how many other possible incidents with
drivers you have stayed away from without giving it any conscious
thought. See above (*).
  #7  
Old August 17th 18, 12:22 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,350
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking
on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the
pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.


...

And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car drivers.

But cyclists are 'the menace'.

The cognitive dissonance screams to the ****ing heavens.


It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is
waiting to overtake. Drivers unfailingly underestimate their speed and
consider 30mph to be "hardly moving" yet people always overestimate the
speed of a cyclist, eg, what the eye witness estimates as 25mph will be
15mph an so on. It seems that cycling at any speed that is faster than
the observer (pedestrian or driver stuck in traffic) - even seen at a
distance - is "dangerous".
  #8  
Old August 17th 18, 09:35 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:

Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic
lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!!


QED. This belief that cyclists 'don't stop at red lights' (or that
they fail to stop at red lights at a rate greater than car drivers)
is so absolutely and firmly entrenched in the car driver's psyche,
that it has been elevated almost to the level of absolute truth. The
sun rises in the east. Water boils at 100° C. 1+1=2. Cyclists
don't stop at red lights.

Except that it isn't true. It's quite fascinating - not only that so
many people can believe so fervently in a falsehood that is becomes
almost like a religion. But equally fascinating is that public
policy can be decided based on this complete fantasy.



Except that it is true. At the moment, Whitechapel station has a
temporary entrance opposite a traffic-light pedestrian crossing across
the A11. A while ago, I had occasion to cross the road there four times
a week for a month or so.

More than half the time, at least one cyclist, sometimes half a dozen
would cross the crossing at about 20mph while I was walking across. I
never looked round, so I don't know if the same was happening the other
side of the road, but I see no reason to assume otherwise.

On the other side of the road from Whitechapel station is the Royal
London Hospital, so a fair percentage of the pedestrians were not too
steady on their feet. I never actually saw a collision, nor do I know
how many of the bicycles had brakes, but the riders were universally
what my daughter, a cyclist herself, calls 'feral' cyclists. Big
helmets, heads down, oblivious to the world around them...

So don't lie.

--
Joe

  #9  
Old August 17th 18, 10:15 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car
drivers are a danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has
gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in
terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to
be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many
thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor
vehicles?

You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists
need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers.

Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.


It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of
words.


In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous".


I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their
meaning.

Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to
pedestrian safety from cyclists.

But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous
drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers -
in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of
drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not
irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by
a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas
they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to
observe or experience.


I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do
take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct
is instilled within us from a very early age.


Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again
that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the
road (*).


It is not a fair summation of the facts; the pedestrian is obliged to be
careful on the road but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights
and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise?

However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when
walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of
the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.


A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian
alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not
near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I
don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I
wonder what the difference is between us.


Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where feral
cyclists are numerous.

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I
simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a
heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had
ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I
continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a
sympathetic female.


Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment.
Unlike a driver.


The cyclist also have a very high chance of harming someone else.


I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there
is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car
whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the
fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not
obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them.


And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than
all the others combined.


Actually, it didn't. The driver started driving away from a red light early
and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts,
many of them have been cycling at high speed.
  #10  
Old August 17th 18, 11:19 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian
alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not
near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I
don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I
wonder what the difference is between us.


Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where
feral cyclists are numerous.


Your lexical choices are revealing. I've never heard a driver described as
'feral'. One calls them 'dangerous' or 'careless'. But 'feral'?

'Of an animal: Wild, untamed. Of a plant, also (rarely), of ground:
Uncultivated...'
(_The OED_, retrieved 17 August 2018)

This really does demonstrate the low regard in which cyclists are held by
the general population [1], and the belief that they are 'out of control'.
Lawless, maybe.


Candour compels me to admit that I deliberately chose that word safe in the
knowledge that it would get a rise out of someone. However, it is a reasonable
choice of word to describe people who have shouted at me because they expected
me to move out of their way while they were riding on the footpath.

It's no wonder that there is such clamour on the part of the mentally
disadvantaged to have cyclists 'registered' and to 'make' them pay
'insurance'. Another kettle of fish, of course.


I would settle for them staying off the pavement, in which case I won't feel
the need to elbow them off their machines into the path of an oncoming Audi.
 




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
Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered David Lang UK 2 September 4th 15 10:54 AM
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 33 April 13th 11 07:53 PM
"Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered" Doug[_3_] UK 1 April 12th 11 08:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.