Fast, dark, no lights, no helmet. Why are cyclists so stupid?

"Partac" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message ...
"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with you,
or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.

Oh? In that case this particular road user was a victim of a psyclekiller.

On 30/08/2013 10:40, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

Mr Williams said: ³He was wearing dark clothing and didn¹t have a crash
helmet or lights on his bike.

³He was cycling quickly in Tan Lane and crossed the road in front of Mrs
Roberts.............. at about 10.20pm on May 11."



http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2...-helmet-died-a
fte
r-car-collision-in-stourport/

Of what relevance is the lack of a helmet?

People who blatantly disregard their own lives are less likely to value
other people's.

Since there is no compelling or conclusive evidence that helmets save
lives, there is thus no proof that a person who does not wear a helmet
does not 'value [his] own [life]'.


Don't argue with him, mate. If he can't see how that argument doesn't
turn back on himself then he is more of a ****wit than I thought.

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

No. And by the way, I couldn't care less what you are forced to do.

On 30/08/2013 16:44, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

No. And by the way, I couldn't care less what you are forced to do.

So you ARE incapable or understanding grammar!

On 30/08/2013 10:29, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

Looks more like the moral of the story is that it is usually a good idea to
look for other traffic when pulling out of a junction. Y'know, a behaviour
that often marks out stupid people when they're being "motorists".

Mr Williams said: "He was wearing dark clothing and didn't have a crash
helmet or lights on his bike.

Why would that have made a difference, given that lights and hi-viz don't
show up through buildings? With poor sightlines compounded by large items of
abandoned property reducing road width, the obvious conclusion is that the
driver was going too fast for the conditions, unable to make a reasonable
response to the mistakes of other road users. (On the basis of the view in
Streetview, 25mph looks too fast, even in daylight.) If a Transit really was
parked "on the right" was the driver/owner done for parking on double
yellows?




Is there any reason that he should be 'done'?

On 30/08/2013 11:48, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 30/08/2013 11:13, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

Do you think that the cyclist was acting sensibly, or stupidly?

You started the thread and made a sarcastic comment. It is reasonable for
you to explain what's going on in your mind, not expect other people to be
telepathic.



Can I re-ask the question that you ignored.

Do you think that the cyclist was acting sensibly, or stupidly?

On 30/08/2013 16:51, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:44, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks
you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

No. And by the way, I couldn't care less what you are forced to do.

So you ARE incapable or understanding grammar!

And that Ladies & Gentlemen is an example of 'Skitts Law'.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 16:44, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

No. And by the way, I couldn't care less what you are forced to do.

So you ARE incapable or understanding grammar!

No. Wrong yet again. I've no idea how you managed to take " I couldn't care
less what you are forced to do", as what you thought.
But then again you are a psycholist, so you do tend to twist things into
something you want to hear, rather than what is actually being said.
Sad really, but we still won't give up trying to help you by showing you the
error of your ways.
We just have to put a bit more effort into it when it comes to you and your
other foulmouthed chum Andy Watson.

On 30/08/2013 17:51, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 16:44, Partac wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 30/08/2013 12:17, Partac wrote:


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" wrote

I agree that two people have made a mistake, but the cyclist made the
largest one.

I don't take issue with that but I asked for reasoning for the thread
title.

The sarcasm you add every time you link a newspaper report just marks
you
out as a deliberate mischief maker, not someone interested in cycle
safety
as you try to claim. You get the contempt you deserve.

And in your psycholist's world, that means anyone who disagrees with
you, or is in the least bit critical of psycholist's bad behaviour.



Can you please learn to use quotation marks or I will be forced to
conclude that you don't know what they are.

No. And by the way, I couldn't care less what you are forced to do.

So you ARE incapable or understanding grammar!

No. Wrong yet again. I've no idea how you managed to take " I couldn't
care less what you are forced to do", as what you thought.
But then again you are a psycholist, so you do tend to twist things into
something you want to hear, rather than what is actually being said.
Sad really, but we still won't give up trying to help you by showing you
the error of your ways.
We just have to put a bit more effort into it when it comes to you and
your other foulmouthed chum Andy Watson.

I was just trying to help you with the basics of usenet and English
grammar. You really do need some help.