On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:20 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


You can complain to uk.tosspot, who will greet you as a long-lost
brother. They think the fact that "yoofs" on bikes commit offences
justifies

I don't recall putting the sort of cyclist I was complaining about
into any particular age bracket. In fact, my own observations tell me
that the most "serious"-looking of cyclists are - if anything - worse.

Ah, so you are making a non age-specific invalid generalisation
instead of the usual age-specific one. That changes everything,
obviously...

whatever behaviour they see fit to inflict on those unlucky
enough to have to share the road with them, and the disparity in
danger posed by cyclists and motorists is of no relevance.

I could ask you to elaborate on the huge supposition you seem to have
made here, but you've already dug yourself into too deep a hole as it
is.

What supposition? Look back at the history of cross-posted threads
between urc and uk.tosspot.

Alternatively you could consider to what extent the relative
seriousness of your pet hate

Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.

and the homicidal bus driver might be informed by the fact the fact
that the bus driver is trained to a higher standard than most road
users, is entrusted with the safety of multiple occupants of his
vehicle, is driving a large and heavy vehicle and is notionally a
professional driver paid to drive. His company has a duty of care to
those with whom their drivers share the roads.

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University