In message , at 15:09:50 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:

I rather expect you'd say any cyclist riding on a public road was by
definition 'deliberately putting themselves in harm's way'.

For example the cyclist I saw the other day.

Approaching a Pelican crossing of the kind that has a central island and
separate signals for each half. When the crossing on his side of the
road was at "red for road, green for pedestrians" he rode along the
middle of the road and onto the island. The lights for the second half
(traffic coming towards him) were "red for pedestrians and green for the
road" but he ignored that and careered across against the traffic and
onto the pavement on the far side, which he then proceeded to cycle
along.
--
Roland Perry

On 08/11/2012 15:31, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:09:50 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:

I rather expect you'd say any cyclist riding on a public road was by
definition 'deliberately putting themselves in harm's way'.

For example the cyclist I saw the other day.

Approaching a Pelican crossing of the kind that has a central island and
separate signals for each half. When the crossing on his side of the
road was at "red for road, green for pedestrians" he rode along the
middle of the road and onto the island. The lights for the second half
(traffic coming towards him) were "red for pedestrians and green for the
road" but he ignored that and careered across against the traffic and
onto the pavement on the far side, which he then proceeded to cycle along.

A non-sequiter response to my sentence (quoted above) if there ever was one.

Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road is
inherently a bad thing? Or would you prefer to 'answer' that with an
observation?

In message , at 15:49:36 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road is
inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:49:36 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road is
inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

I believe there's a newsgroup for that sort of discussion.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On 08/11/2012 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:36 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road
is inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

What do you think about motorists ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign?

In article , Mizter T wrote:

On 08/11/2012 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:36 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road
is inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

What do you think about motorists ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign?

... and that one ...

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Mizter T wrote:


On 08/11/2012 15:00, Anthony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

On 08/11/2012 13:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:49:08 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:

Cyclists flouting the law. Who'da thunk it.

Roland Perry using any ecuse to flaunt his prejudices. Who'da thunk it.

Prejudice is "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or
without knowledge or examination of the facts".

The fact are, as we know from all too many observations: cyclists regard
themselves above the [traffic] law.

Yeah, all of them. The facts, by Roland Perry.

... and by virtually everyone else who drives a car and sees many
idiot cyclists deliberately putting themselves in harm's way.

Yesterday I saw plenty of utterly moronic and unlawful driving of cars.

Anyhow, I rather expect you'd say any cyclist riding on a public road
was by definition 'deliberately putting themselves in harm's way'.

But a discussion with you involving the splendid transport mode that is
cycling is about as pointless as me expending the effort to press send
on this post.


Didn't seem to stop you, however.

On 08/11/2012 16:16, Nick Leverton wrote:

In article , Mizter T wrote:

On 08/11/2012 16:00, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:36 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road
is inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

What do you think about motorists ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign?

.. and that one ...

Oh, this is of course a totally unedifying discussion (if it even
warrants that description), but I just fancied challenging Roland a bit.
He'll have the last word of course, but on rare occasions this bizarre
masochistic urge just grabs me.

(What I'm aiming for here is the unspoken "all" or "some" that precedes
"cyclists" in Roland's comments, and trying to tease out which he means.
Of course the ambiguity suits him very well, because it allows him to
spout off whilst maintaining a semblance of cover. Though you're right,
this branch of the discussion belongs on uk.transport.rant. I shall desist.)

In article , Mizter T wrote:
On 08/11/2012 16:16, Nick Leverton wrote:

.. and that one ...

Oh, this is of course a totally unedifying discussion (if it even
warrants that description), but I just fancied challenging Roland a bit.
He'll have the last word of course, but on rare occasions this bizarre
masochistic urge just grabs me.

(What I'm aiming for here is the unspoken "all" or "some" that precedes
"cyclists" in Roland's comments, and trying to tease out which he means.
Of course the ambiguity suits him very well, because it allows him to
spout off whilst maintaining a semblance of cover. Though you're right,
this branch of the discussion belongs on uk.transport.rant. I shall desist.)

No, don't let me spoil your fun. Normally I'd just have killed the
entire thread, but I perhaps over-reacted as sometimes it seems as if
uk.r**.c*****g is taking over the whole of what's left of uk.*.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On 08/11/2012 16:33, Anthony Polson wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

... and by virtually everyone else who drives a car and sees many
idiot cyclists deliberately putting themselves in harm's way.

Yesterday I saw plenty of utterly moronic and unlawful driving of cars.

Anyhow, I rather expect you'd say any cyclist riding on a public road
was by definition 'deliberately putting themselves in harm's way'.

But a discussion with you involving the splendid transport mode that is
cycling is about as pointless as me expending the effort to press send
on this post.

Didn't seem to stop you, however.

No, well observed, it didn't.