Brighton cyclist ordered to pay £1,000 for ignoring one-way sign

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:05:51 -0000, Mrcheerful wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:15:09 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrm3buiytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:31:47 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...








the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity,
ignoring them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and
damage property, which is why there are laws which govern their
use.

Cyclists rarely cause injuries, and when they do they're usually
minor. So the law should concentrate on the cars which are far more
dangerous.

Hello, Doug has returned.

Doug sounds like a sensible chap.

It is not a compliment.
He was universally despised on every group he posted to.

I heard you the first time.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A penny saved is a government oversight.

On 12/01/2013 11:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

And of course they can also cause accidents.

Not big ones.

even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

That's a very common thing for law-breaking cyclists to say, here and
elsewhere.

In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****".

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:39:30 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/01/2013 11:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

That's a very common thing for law-breaking cyclists to say, here and
elsewhere.

In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****".

Cars cause more and bigger accidents. Who cares about cyclists and pedestrians? It's not much different to two pedestrians colliding. Or are they going to make that illegal too? Maybe it'll soon be against the law not to smile at everyone you pass?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A scientist from Texas A&M University has invented a bra that keeps women's breasts from jiggling and prevents the nipples from pushing through the fabric when cold weather sets in.
At a news conference announcing the invention, the scientist was taken outside by a group of cowboys, who then proceeded to kick the **** out of him.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsrj3z3ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:03:57 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:14:38 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrm3kpsytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:40:03 -0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

On 11/01/2013 19:31, Mrcheerful wrote:





And of course they can also cause accidents.

Not big ones.


even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

Prick.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:55 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsrj3z3ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:03:57 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:14:38 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrm3kpsytk5n5@i7-940...







even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

Prick.

There is no substance to your argument sir.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What do you call an aerobics instructor who doesn't cause pain & agony?
Unemployed.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsrlhqqytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:05:51 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:15:09 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrm3buiytk5n5@i7-940...
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:31:47 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrcz2tlytk5n5@i7-940...








the laws are to give order to an otherwise unregulated activity,
ignoring them for any group of road users is unwise.
As you have agreed, cycles can and do injure and kill people and
damage property, which is why there are laws which govern their
use.

Cyclists rarely cause injuries, and when they do they're usually
minor. So the law should concentrate on the cars which are far more
dangerous.

Hello, Doug has returned.

Doug sounds like a sensible chap.

It is not a compliment.
He was universally despised on every group he posted to.

I heard you the first time.

--

Sorry, the first got sent yet remained in the outbox due to editing till it
was sent again.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsxl5bxytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:55 -0000, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsrj3z3ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:03:57 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:14:38 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqrm3kpsytk5n5@i7-940...







even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

Prick.

There is no substance to your argument sir.

What argument?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What do you call an aerobics instructor who doesn't cause pain & agony?
Unemployed.

On 12/01/2013 12:51, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:39:30 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 12/01/2013 11:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
even a 'small' accident can kill. Which is why there are rules to
keep the majority safe, breaking the rules increases the chances of
a crash/injury or death.

CAN. Not likely. Cars cause more and bigger accidents, concentrate
on them.

This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

That's a very common thing for law-breaking cyclists to say, here and
elsewhere.

In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****".

Cars cause more and bigger accidents. Who cares about cyclists and
pedestrians? It's not much different to two pedestrians colliding. Or
are they going to make that illegal too? Maybe it'll soon be against
the law not to smile at everyone you pass?

Extraordinary.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:45:36 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsxl5bxytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:30:55 -0000, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqsrj3z3ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 11:03:57 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:









This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

Prick.

There is no substance to your argument sir.

What argument?

What the law should apply to.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Do infants have as much fun in their infancy as adults do in adultery?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 14:46:00 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/01/2013 12:51, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:39:30 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 12/01/2013 11:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:




This is a cycle group

I'm saying the law should concentrate on the cars, not the cyclists.

That's a very common thing for law-breaking cyclists to say, here and
elsewhere.

In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****".

Cars cause more and bigger accidents. Who cares about cyclists and
pedestrians? It's not much different to two pedestrians colliding. Or
are they going to make that illegal too? Maybe it'll soon be against
the law not to smile at everyone you pass?

Extraordinary.

And your reasoning?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle.