|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote: On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote: You miss the point. The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem. That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the one at risk, not him. Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway. You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast? If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in the average motorist's common sense than I would have done. The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice. Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek urgent medical help. I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet. Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence. We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On 30/12/2019 19:26, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote: On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote: You miss the point. The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem. That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the one at risk, not him. Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway. You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast? If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in the average motorist's common sense than I would have done. The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice. Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek urgent medical help. I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet. "temporary"? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On 30/12/2019 19:30, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:17, TMS320 wrote: Sorry, you're the one missing the point. Motorists tell cyclists to use facilities provided (paid from their "road tax", whatever that is), even if useless, dangerous or don't go where the cyclist wants to go. I clearly am missing that particular point, as it's nothing I've ever done or would ever dream of doing. I would obviously recommend that cyclists take reasonable precautions to keep themselves as safe as reasonably possible, because there are some pretty awful drivers around (me included). That's a different matter to drivers demanding that cylists using the roads perfectly legally should not be there. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote: On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote: On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote: You miss the point. The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem. That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the one at risk, not him. Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway. You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast? If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in the average motorist's common sense than I would have done. The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice. Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek urgent medical help. I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet. Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence. So, both you and the motorists were lawfully using that road. No argument there, then. We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way Were they going in the opposite direction to you, then? If in the same direction, then they must have caught you up and overtaken you. Otherwise, there'd never have been any discussion. Unless it was you doing the overtaking? I'll just repeat that it seems rather dangerous for cyclists to ride two abreast, and you might be better off adopting a different strategy. If you impede other road users, some of them will get very impatient and make dangerous attempts to pass you, putting themselves and other road users at risk. even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists. Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes in the enormous traffic jam. I can see that the mystery affliction has you firmly in its grip still. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On 31/12/2019 10:24, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote: even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists. Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes in the enormous traffic jam. That is a fairly normal state off affairs. Still complaining that the traffic they are part of is somebody else's fault. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:24:35 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote: On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote: On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote: You miss the point. The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem. That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the one at risk, not him. Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway. You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast? If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in the average motorist's common sense than I would have done. The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice. Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek urgent medical help. I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet. Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence. So, both you and the motorists were lawfully using that road. No argument there, then. The difference is we had a RIGHT to use than road, the motorist was only there under licence and should have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists. We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way Were they going in the opposite direction to you, then? If in the same direction, then they must have caught you up and overtaken you. Otherwise, there'd never have been any discussion. Unless it was you doing the overtaking? The road paid for by cyclists was straight and clear. The subsidised road user chose to endanger our lives by using his vehicle as a weapon. I'll just repeat that it seems rather dangerous for cyclists to ride two abreast, and you might be better off adopting a different strategy. If you impede other road users, some of them will get very impatient and make dangerous attempts to pass you, putting themselves and other road users at risk. All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user. even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists. Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes in the enormous traffic jam. I can see that the mystery affliction has you firmly in its grip still. I have nothing against cars I just object to 'The roads are for cars' mindset. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user. And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump up and down with the apple on his head. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote:
All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user. And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump up and down with the apple on his head. In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do some research before posting in future. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote: All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user. And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump up and down with the apple on his head. In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do some research before posting in future. GB I suspect was referring to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfykK8Iw7w But you are too stupid to understand. I suggest that you think before you post. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Compulsory Motorways
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 5:19:47 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote: All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user. And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump up and down with the apple on his head. In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do some research before posting in future. GB I suspect was referring to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfykK8Iw7w But you are too stupid to understand. I suggest that you think before you post. Where was the cyclist? This is a cycling group. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclists should not try to ride across motorways | Mrcheerful | UK | 0 | July 29th 14 03:53 PM |
Cycling on motorways | Judith[_15_] | UK | 4 | March 7th 14 04:36 PM |
2 second rule on motorways | Mr. Bean | UK | 100 | March 21st 12 03:17 PM |
[OT] Pathetic motorways | Zog The Undeniable | UK | 17 | February 6th 05 05:42 PM |
Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways | Epetruk | UK | 111 | January 18th 05 05:11 PM |