When being overtaken, slow down if necessary.

On Monday, 3 March 2014 21:59:39 UTC, Dave VOR wrote:


That's because it doesn't.



So if your children damage my car what insurance do you have to cover it?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 08:23:18 +0000, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

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........

It was you who helped originally define the term.

There was a discussion about someone who had nine bicycles stolen.

I commented that to have one bike stolen was unlucky, to have two
bikes stolen was unfortunate, to have three bikes stolen was stupid,
but I was at a complete loss for the term for having nine bikes
stolen.

A comment from you gave me the term Plankwitted, i.e. as dim-witted as
a "professional handyman" laying a deck with one white plank.

Note: I used the term "professional handyman" in inverted commas, as
the term appears to be oxymoronic.

Anyway - I am pleased that your name, Plankwit, is considered childish
by you. For someone who considers, or pretends to consider, a bicycle
to be a child's toy it is highly suitable.

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:38:26 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
Simples really, if you can see a vehicle needs more room to get through,

just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and getting

yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a compo cam makes you

feel invincible?



http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/l...mera-1-6470125

I fixed it for you (below)

Simples (sic) really, if you can see a vehicle needs more time to get through,
just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and wiping the vehicle and rider out by getting yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a big lorry makes you feel invincible?

On 04/03/2014 15:28, al Mossah wrote:
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:38:26 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
Simples really, if you can see a vehicle needs more room to get through,

just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and getting

yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a compo cam makes you

feel invincible?



http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/l...mera-1-6470125

I fixed it for you (below)

Simples (sic) really, if you can see a vehicle needs more time to get through,
just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and wiping the vehicle and rider out by getting yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a big lorry makes you feel invincible?


certainly, but using the road involves everyone. Just ploughing on
regardless as the cyclist did is as wrong as the lorry misjudging the
distance available. Trying to take the moral high ground does not keep
you safe, but it might end your life.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:10:12 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 04/03/2014 15:28, al Mossah wrote:

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:38:26 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:

Simples really, if you can see a vehicle needs more room to get through,



just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and getting



yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a compo cam makes you



feel invincible?







http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/l...mera-1-6470125



I fixed it for you (below)



Simples (sic) really, if you can see a vehicle needs more time to get through,

just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and wiping the vehicle and rider out by getting yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a big lorry makes you feel invincible?





certainly, but using the road involves everyone. Just ploughing on

regardless as the cyclist did is as wrong as the lorry misjudging the

distance available. Trying to take the moral high ground does not keep

you safe, but it might end your life.

The cyclist didn't "plough on", he did what we all would do, namely duck out in order to continue living. This type of thing is all too common; happens to me not infrequently but fortunately for me not as bad as this.

On 04/03/2014 17:18, al Mossah wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:10:12 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 04/03/2014 15:28, al Mossah wrote:

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:38:26 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:

Simples really, if you can see a vehicle needs more room to get through,



just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and getting



yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a compo cam makes you



feel invincible?







http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/l...mera-1-6470125



I fixed it for you (below)



Simples (sic) really, if you can see a vehicle needs more time to get through,

just slow up a little or brake if needed, just carrying on and wiping the vehicle and rider out by getting yourself in a narrowing gap is potty, presumably a big lorry makes you feel invincible?





certainly, but using the road involves everyone. Just ploughing on

regardless as the cyclist did is as wrong as the lorry misjudging the

distance available. Trying to take the moral high ground does not keep

you safe, but it might end your life.

The cyclist didn't "plough on", he did what we all would do, namely duck out in order to continue living. This type of thing is all too common; happens to me not infrequently but fortunately for me not as bad as this.



it is part of using the road, there is no need to film it or snivel to
others, nor scream at the lorry driver, it is just part of using the
road system.
If I rode around like that I would feel that I was a failure at using
the road.
The situation the cyclist was in was entirely foreseeable to a competent
road user, and that is the problem, cyclists are , in the main, entirely
untrained and incompetent, yet feel that they are God's gift to the planet.

On 04/03/2014 09:33, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, 3 March 2014 21:59:39 UTC, Dave VOR wrote:


That's because it doesn't.



So if your children damage my car what insurance do you have to cover it?

My fridge freezer insurance.

--
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."

On 04/03/2014 17:18, al Mossah wrote:


The cyclist didn't "plough on", he did what we all would do, namely
duck out in order to continue living. This type of thing is all too
common; happens to me not infrequently but fortunately for me not as
bad as this.

Then chose a proper form of transport.

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

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:50:12 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 04/03/2014 17:18, al Mossah wrote:


The cyclist didn't "plough on", he did what we all would do, namely
duck out in order to continue living. This type of thing is all too
common; happens to me not infrequently but fortunately for me not as
bad as this.

Then chose a proper form of transport.

Yawn.

--
It's a money /life balance.

"Stanley Daniel de Liver" wrote in message
newsp.xb7rpcr6o4et73@dell3100...

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:50:12 -0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 04/03/2014 17:18, al Mossah wrote:


The cyclist didn't "plough on", he did what we all would do, namely
duck out in order to continue living. This type of thing is all too
common; happens to me not infrequently but fortunately for me not as
bad as this.

Then chose a proper form of transport.

Yawn.

Yet another dozy cyclist.