When being overtaken, slow down if necessary.

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:22:22 -0800 (PST), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Sunday, 2 March 2014 21:30:55 UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

The real problem is the **** using a child's toy as transport.


When your children use their toys in public do they have 3rd party insurance?


Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:34:54 GMT, (Cassandra)
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:31:30 -0800 (PST), Simon Jester
wrote:

On Sunday, 2 March 2014 21:35:08 UTC, Cassandra wrote:

There is nothing wrong with overtaking another road user without
causing them to brake or change course.


The primary road user was forced to brake and swerve to avoid
being murdered.

He didn't even do that. Like all cyclists with bike-cams he was more
interested in posting footage on youtube for other cyclists to
masterbate to than road safety.

A friend of mine works in a PC repair shop.

He has noticed the number of customers who come in with gunge of some sort in
between the keys on the keyboard, who all arrive on push-bikes.

I suspect that it is not a coincidence.

On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.


if all these cyclists have this insurance, why do they clear off
smartish after hurting someone or damaging something?

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:50:17 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.


if all these cyclists have this insurance, why do they clear off
smartish after hurting someone or damaging something?

I have often wondered the same thing.

I would like to think that they only clear off after a typically
English misunderstanding:

Cyclist - "I'm terribly sorry, I just didn't see you, are you OK?"

Pedestrian - "No, no, no, it's all my fault. I'm fine thank you." As
blood pumps from the wounded pensioner's jugular.

Cyclist - "OK then, if you are sure you are OK I'll be off."

However, that is probably wishful thinking, and the hit-n-run cyclist
is just a nasty person.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:31:28 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:50:17 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.


if all these cyclists have this insurance, why do they clear off
smartish after hurting someone or damaging something?

I have often wondered the same thing.

I would like to think that they only clear off after a typically
English misunderstanding:

Cyclist - "I'm terribly sorry, I just didn't see you, are you OK?"

Pedestrian - "No, no, no, it's all my fault. I'm fine thank you." As
blood pumps from the wounded pensioner's jugular.

Cyclist - "OK then, if you are sure you are OK I'll be off."

However, that is probably wishful thinking, and the hit-n-run cyclist
is just a nasty person.


Good post Dave.

(It was you Dave, wasn't it?)

On 02/03/2014 22:22, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 21:30:55 UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

The real problem is the **** using a child's toy as transport.


When your children use their toys in public do they have 3rd party insurance?


They are 27 & 31 years old.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.

That's because it doesn't.


I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.



--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £46 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Less than £10 billion of this is spent on roads.
Q: Do cyclists pay any specific, extra taxes in order to use their
vehicles on the road?
A: No. They are sponging freeloaders.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:22:20 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:31:28 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:50:17 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.


if all these cyclists have this insurance, why do they clear off
smartish after hurting someone or damaging something?

I have often wondered the same thing.

I would like to think that they only clear off after a typically
English misunderstanding:

Cyclist - "I'm terribly sorry, I just didn't see you, are you OK?"

Pedestrian - "No, no, no, it's all my fault. I'm fine thank you." As
blood pumps from the wounded pensioner's jugular.

Cyclist - "OK then, if you are sure you are OK I'll be off."

However, that is probably wishful thinking, and the hit-n-run cyclist
is just a nasty person.


Good post Dave.

Hell! Was my post _that_ devoid of intellectual argument!?

(It was you Dave, wasn't it?)

Phew - you noticed there was more substance to my argument than any
post by Plankwit.

On 03/03/2014 22:57, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:22:20 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:31:28 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:50:17 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 03/03/2014 18:46, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 11:01:30 UTC, Judith wrote:

Of course he does, his fridge/freezer insurance includes it

But Dave refuses to accept that home contents insurance covers
primary road users for their liabilities.
I therefore assume he has specific cover for his children and their toys.
After all even a football can cause property damage, especially to cars.


if all these cyclists have this insurance, why do they clear off
smartish after hurting someone or damaging something?

I have often wondered the same thing.

I would like to think that they only clear off after a typically
English misunderstanding:

Cyclist - "I'm terribly sorry, I just didn't see you, are you OK?"

Pedestrian - "No, no, no, it's all my fault. I'm fine thank you." As
blood pumps from the wounded pensioner's jugular.

Cyclist - "OK then, if you are sure you are OK I'll be off."

However, that is probably wishful thinking, and the hit-n-run cyclist
is just a nasty person.


Good post Dave.

Hell! Was my post _that_ devoid of intellectual argument!?

No, it wasn't your usual level of stupidity, that's why people though it
came from me.

(It was you Dave, wasn't it?)

Phew - you noticed there was more substance to my argument than any
post by Plankwit.

Written by someone who's idea of intellectual argument is to use the
somewhat childish term plankwit........



--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."