"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
...
Riding my rather groovy OYbike (details to follow) up wood lane at 18:20
this evening, passed dozens of cars, vans, lorries, no problem, then, just
south of TVC, a double decker bus was blocking the lane. I peers arround
the
right but there was no way I was going to chance riding on the outside of
the traffic facing those vehicles. Had to get off and walk past the bus on
the pavement. The bus was a 220, W reg, possibly W9#XXX. When confronted
his
response was "**** you". Who can I complain to to ensure he loses his job,
or at the bery least is forced to ride a bike for 50 miles arround London.

Well, if it works like it does around here then you'll be able to complain
to a manager at the bus company, but nothing will come of it. I wish you
better luck than I've had.

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 19:00:39 +0100, "Paul Weaver"
wrote:

Riding my rather groovy OYbike (details to follow) up wood lane at 18:20
this evening, passed dozens of cars, vans, lorries, no problem, then, just
south of TVC, a double decker bus was blocking the lane. I peers arround the
right but there was no way I was going to chance riding on the outside of
the traffic facing those vehicles. Had to get off and walk past the bus on
the pavement. The bus was a 220, W reg, possibly W9#XXX. When confronted his
response was "**** you". Who can I complain to to ensure he loses his job,
or at the bery least is forced to ride a bike for 50 miles arround London.

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:41:27 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them?

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 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.

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

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

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:40:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:41:27 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them?

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.

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.

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

Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

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?

--
May contain traces of irony.

But clearly not much coherency....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Nick Cooper wrote:
Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

Your comments were an irrelevant tangent to the discussion.

d.

Nick Cooper opined the
following...
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.

Define "serious"-looking! The ones I see tend to be yoofs on cheap full-
sus MTBs, and cycle couriers (Who are basically trying to shorten their
lifespan!).

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

No. But it does make for an interesting comparison. A crap cyclist is
liable to end up dead and probably scratch someone's paintwork. A crap
car driver is liable to end up killing someone. A crap bus driver (Or
driver of similarly sized vehicle) is liable to kill a great many people
and cause vast amounts of damage.

It's all about proportion.

Jon

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:49:16 +0100, Jon Senior
jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote:

Nick Cooper opined the
following...
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.

Define "serious"-looking! The ones I see tend to be yoofs on cheap full-
sus MTBs, and cycle couriers (Who are basically trying to shorten their
lifespan!).

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

No. But it does make for an interesting comparison. A crap cyclist is
liable to end up dead and probably scratch someone's paintwork. A crap
car driver is liable to end up killing someone. A crap bus driver (Or
driver of similarly sized vehicle) is liable to kill a great many people
and cause vast amounts of damage.

Yeah, well having seen speeding cyclists jumping reds at crossings and
coming within a hair's bredth of sending OAPs flying, I'll reserve
judgement on that one.

It's all about proportion.

Indeed. Whinging cyclists should be aware that not all of their
bretheren are white-clad angels-on-wheels.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
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.

Your supposition that I have any affinity with - or remit to defend -
the drivers of motor vehicles.

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 where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?

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.

Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:41:27 GMT,
Alternatively you could consider to what extent the relative
seriousness of your pet hate and the homicidal bus driver might be

"Homicidal bus driver"???? All he did was block a cycle lane!