|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day
On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote: On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote: [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a bike, in a car, etc. [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law. You are active because have replied to another thread since my request. Nothing to support your idea? What are you talking about? It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it. For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver has a complete disregard for the safety of others. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day
On 08/05/2018 08:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote: On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote: On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote: [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a bike, in a car, etc. [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law. You are active because have replied to another thread since my request. Nothing to support your idea? What are you talking about? It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it. For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver has a complete disregard for the safety of others. Who asked for what, and when, and what is the paragraph beginning "You are active" about? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day
On 08/05/18 14:54, JNugent wrote:
On 08/05/2018 08:35, TMS320 wrote: On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote: On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote: On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote: [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a bike, in a car, etc. [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law. You are active because have replied to another thread since my request. Nothing to support your idea? What are you talking about? It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it. For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver has a complete disregard for the safety of others. Who asked for what, and when, and what is the paragraph beginning "You are active" about? The what and when are clear enough. I asked you to justify your statement at the top on 06/05/18 23:12. You answered another thread at 07/05/18 00:43. Hence you had been active (on this group) before I asked you again in the morning. One has to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day
On 08/05/2018 19:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/05/18 14:54, JNugent wrote: On 08/05/2018 08:35, TMS320 wrote: On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote: On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote: On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote: [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a bike, in a car, etc. [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law. You are active because have replied to another thread since my request. Nothing to support your idea? What are you talking about? It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it. For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver has a complete disregard for the safety of others. Who asked for what, and when, and what is the paragraph beginning "You are active" about? The what and when are clear enough. I asked you to justify your statement at the top on 06/05/18 23:12. You answered another thread at 07/05/18 00:43. Hence you had been active (on this group) before I asked you again in the morning. One has to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. I certainly don't know what *you* are talking about - which obviously makes two of us. Are you under the impression that I am obliged to do as you say? Please disabuse yourself of that error soonest. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughtful non-cyclist of the day
On 09/05/18 01:56, JNugent wrote:
On 08/05/2018 19:21, TMS320 wrote: On 08/05/18 14:54, JNugent wrote: On 08/05/2018 08:35, TMS320 wrote: On 07/05/18 15:56, JNugent wrote: On 07/05/2018 08:55, TMS320 wrote: On 06/05/18 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 05/05/18 14:40, JNugent wrote: [1] People crossing across a properly laid-out footway crossing between a driveway and the carriageway have the priority, whether they're on a bike, in a car, etc. [2] Quote the statute. If you are able to then it is a bad law. You are active because have replied to another thread since my request. Nothing to support your idea? What are you talking about? It's very simple. You make a statement, such as in [1], and as common practice, someone asks you [2] to substantiate it. For your information, a person riding a bike along the pavement (there are plenty of shared paths), often has to give way at a driveway (just like pedestrians), not because of an obligation, but because a driver has a complete disregard for the safety of others. Who asked for what, and when, and what is the paragraph beginning "You are active" about? The what and when are clear enough. I asked you to justify your statement at the top on 06/05/18 23:12. You answered another thread at 07/05/18 00:43. Hence you had been active (on this group) before I asked you again in the morning. One has to assume that you don't know what you are talking about. I certainly don't know what *you* are talking about - which obviously makes two of us. I do happen to know. Are you under the impression that I am obliged to do as you say? You are not obliged to but it depends on whether you want to be taken seriously. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thieving young scum cyclist learns the way of poverty cyclist life | Mr Pounder Esquire | UK | 3 | October 18th 17 03:52 PM |
Hyperbole? not from a cyclist, surely? Pavement cyclist claims aterrorist in a van weapon came near him. | MrCheerful | UK | 15 | September 23rd 16 09:07 PM |
Thoughtful motorist takes garden rubbish for a car-ride | Squashme | UK | 24 | July 1st 13 08:01 PM |
A thoughtful article | Mr. Benn[_9_] | UK | 16 | March 13th 12 07:16 PM |
Thoughtful | Colin Blackburn | UK | 2 | May 24th 04 12:13 PM |