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

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqs3k5qhytk5n5@i7-940...
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.

The law should apply to lawbreakers.

On 12/01/2013 12:39, JNugent wrote:
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, ****".

Perhaps that in indicative of the type of people why cycle on footways
or on pedestrian crossings?

My own cycling encounters with pedestrians are always amicable. It is
only drivers who seem to get vexed from time to time.

On 12/01/2013 11:59, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


That could mean the rest of the group were idiots. Most people in
newsgroups are idiots.


True. We must be idiots to read and post this crap :-)

On 12/01/2013 11:05, Mrcheerful wrote:


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



No really, he was the champion of idiots, he made Dave look like Captain
Sensible.

On 12/01/2013 18:17, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:05, Mrcheerful wrote:


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



No really, he was the champion of idiots, he made Dave look like Captain
Sensible.


You haven't quite grasped the concept yet have you?

If you ride a push bike, you are automatically an idiot. It's a given.

Sensible people don't ride pushbikes.

--
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 12/01/2013 18:32, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/01/2013 18:17, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:05, Mrcheerful wrote:


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



No really, he was the champion of idiots, he made Dave look like Captain
Sensible.


You haven't quite grasped the concept yet have you?

If you ride a push bike, you are automatically an idiot. It's a given.

To a certain extent I can agree with you.

Sensible people don't ride pushbikes.

Cycling is not ‘sensible’.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:33:11 -0000, Mrcheerful wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqs3k5qhytk5n5@i7-940...
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...










Prick.

There is no substance to your argument sir.

What argument?

What the law should apply to.

The law should apply to lawbreakers.

If the law doesn't apply to something, then the lawbreaker is no longer breaking a law.

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

Why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor when you can't drink and drive?

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:14:00 -0000, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 12/01/2013 12:39, JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2013 11:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:








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, ****".

Perhaps that in indicative of the type of people why cycle on footways
or on pedestrian crossings?

My own cycling encounters with pedestrians are always amicable. It is
only drivers who seem to get vexed from time to time.

I have never annoyed a pedestrian and I frequently cycle on the pavement. It's very easy to go round them.

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

CO2 emissions aren't a problem. CO2 is supposed to be there. It feeds plants for ****s sake! If greenies want plants to be healthy, we need MORE CO2! They pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better!

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:16:15 -0000, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 12/01/2013 11:59, Lieutenant Scott wrote:


That could mean the rest of the group were idiots. Most people in
newsgroups are idiots.


True. We must be idiots to read and post this crap :-)

I have an uncontrollable desire to correct all these idiots.

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

Exersize: the act of removing excess baggage

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtcqjlnytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:33:11 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqs3k5qhytk5n5@i7-940...
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...










Prick.

There is no substance to your argument sir.

What argument?

What the law should apply to.

The law should apply to lawbreakers.

If the law doesn't apply to something, then the lawbreaker is no longer
breaking a law.


That is a given.