Interesting viewpoint on death by cycling ..

On Apr 15, 12:59*am, "BartC" wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in ...

On 13/04/2011 18:15, alan.holmes wrote:
But jumping red lights is another matter, but one has to consider that
some
lights are poorly phased and stay red for a very long time even though
there
is no traffic crossing the road ahead.

Oh what a ****ing shame. *Of course as a cyclist you consider yourself
'special' don't you?

Its not up to you to decide how lights are phased you arrogant ****.

You're saying every single set of lights in the UK is perfectly phased? In
that case there would never be pointless queues waiting 'patiently' for
non-existent traffic.

Motorists wait patiently

No they don't; they might wait, but not patiently.

for them to change because they appreciate there is a reason behind it.

Often the wrong reason. Lights are controlled by a dumb circuit that just
turns them on and off in sequence. If they respond intelligently to varying
traffic flow then I've never noticed.

BTW pedestrians are not obliged to pay attention to traffic lights. They
have the privilege of being able to use their own common sense instead of
mindlessly obeying every sign.

Some people think that privilege should be accorded, to some extent, to
other road users too.

--
Bartc *

It's funny that cyclists who complain about SMIDSY would then want to
put themselves in a place where they would not be expected.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:58:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:




If you find the roads designed for & paid for by motorists dangerous,
then don't ride a children s toy on them you idiot. Use a viable form
of transport.

I do. it is called a bicycle.

TMH is almost certainly winding people up on purpose. Otherwise, anyone who
really thinks that *all* cyclists a

"Law breaking, anti social, arrogant, terrorist scum"

should not be allowed anywhere near a car.

--
Bartc

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:42:14 +0100, BartC wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:58:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:




If you find the roads designed for & paid for by motorists dangerous,
then don't ride a children s toy on them you idiot. Use a viable form
of transport.

I do. it is called a bicycle.

TMH is almost certainly winding people up on purpose. Otherwise, anyone
who really thinks that *all* cyclists a

"Law breaking, anti social, arrogant, terrorist scum"

should not be allowed anywhere near a car.

Is this the first time you have noticed this?



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:22:33 GMT, Sandy wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:06:58 +0000, Peter Keller wrote:
Of course the two groups of bicyclists you describe do not have to be
the same people. Not all bicyclists are "lycra louts" etc, but some
are.

I don't really understand the term "lycra lout".

Specialist cycling clothing, such at that made out of lycra is expensive
and something only a person serious about cycling would wear. A person
who is serious about cycling will probably be thinking about and obeying
the laws they should follow as a cyclist.

In my opinion a cyclist wearing lycra are usually good cyclists. The bad
cyclists are wearing more general attire, such as jeans.

Or black skins.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 18:19, alan.holmes wrote:
"Tom wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:21:59 +0100,
wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

And it would encourage the police to prosecute more people whether they
have
commited an offence or not, I don't trust the police on many matters.

Probably because you are a serial law breaking cyclist.

How did you guess?

Alan




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

On 15/04/2011 00:59, BartC wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 18:15, alan.holmes wrote:

But jumping red lights is another matter, but one has to consider that
some
lights are poorly phased and stay red for a very long time even though
there
is no traffic crossing the road ahead.

Oh what a ****ing shame. Of course as a cyclist you consider yourself
'special' don't you?

Its not up to you to decide how lights are phased you arrogant ****.

You're saying every single set of lights in the UK is perfectly phased?

Not at all. But if you have an issue with a particular set of lights
you should contact the local authority - not take the law into your own
hands.

In that case there would never be pointless queues waiting 'patiently' for
non-existent traffic.

Motorists wait patiently

No they don't; they might wait, but not patiently.

I'm afraid they do. After all, they are in a comfy seat, protected from
the elements, radio on etc. As opposed to idiot cyclists wobbling about
hoping the don't fall over.


for them to change because they appreciate there is a reason behind it.

Often the wrong reason. Lights are controlled by a dumb circuit that just
turns them on and off in sequence. If they respond intelligently to varying
traffic flow then I've never noticed.

That would be because you are ****ing thick. Lights are controlled by
lasers, pneumatic sensors or more commonly inductive loops. They are
clearly much smarter than you are.


BTW pedestrians are not obliged to pay attention to traffic lights.

Pedestrians aren't in charge of a vehicle ****wit.

They have the privilege of being able to use their own common sense instead of
mindlessly obeying every sign.

Its not a case of mindlessly obeying every sign, Its being bright enough
to realise that there is a system in place that works very well &
sticking to it.

Some people think that privilege should be accorded, to some extent, to
other road users too.

And most don't - especially to cyclist road lice.



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

On 15/04/2011 10:42, BartC wrote:


"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:58:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:




If you find the roads designed for & paid for by motorists dangerous,
then don't ride a children s toy on them you idiot. Use a viable form
of transport.

I do. it is called a bicycle.

TMH is almost certainly winding people up on purpose.

No **** Sherlock?


Otherwise, anyone who really thinks that *all* cyclists a

"Law breaking, anti social, arrogant, terrorist scum"

should not be allowed anywhere near a car.

Did I miss the meeting where that was discussed?

The vast majority of the motoring public think cyclists are scum.

Did the term 'lycra lout' invent itself?








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

On 15/04/2011 21:24, alan.holmes wrote:
"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 13/04/2011 18:19, alan.holmes wrote:
"Tom wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:21:59 +0100,
wrote:

Put it into the police pension funds, perhaps.

There is no police pension fund.

Police pensions are paid by current police pension contributions and
topped up by the taxpayer. Any money raised from fines and fixed
penalties used to pay police pensions would, in effect, assist the
taxpayer, not the police.

And it would encourage the police to prosecute more people whether they
have
commited an offence or not, I don't trust the police on many matters.

Probably because you are a serial law breaking cyclist.

How did you guess?

Its not rocket science. All cyclists are serial law breakers.


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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:46:39 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



That would be because you are ****ing thick.

I love my ****s ****ing thick.




--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:53:21 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


Its not rocket science. All cyclists are serial law breakers.

And proud of it!



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.