Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, thaksin wrote:
Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any
cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man.
Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't
want to shoulder charge me mate!
And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian crossing
being used by pedestrians without even slowing?
No, prat.
sigh
A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma.
You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't you?
Actually yes
Thought so.
but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****!
Once again, that's dash dash space.
Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old
lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately -
because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed.
See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole!
See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you?
Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to
be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you
realised what a tit you'd made yourself look?
No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the
law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to
good for him.
You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings
and I'm pointing out you're wrong.
Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve
your own person?
Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's perfectly
capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment about
'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the widely-held
and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be permitted to
vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put them at risk. So:
cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in attacking car (apparently).
ped feels at risk from cyclist = justified in attacking cyclist. See?
All makes sense now

Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a
double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's
a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number
plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in
seconds.

Ummmm, ********. Sorry, but it is. The _car_ performing this illegal
man-nooo-ver is suitably equipped with a method of tracing and
penalising the responsible person. Any person can, and many in URC
allegedly _do_, report said vehicle with the precision necessary to
identify later. Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember
even _hearing of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant
cyclist, AND lets remember that said cyclist has no identifying mark so
that any random member of the public can report him (or plod, for that
matter). "Umm, he had a red jersey on a mountain bike" isn't exactly
going to find him later, is it?

Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore
able to empathise with one road user than the other?

Its not possible to come up with a reason for it, since we've just shown
that it doesn't exist.