On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

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.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

[remainder of overly-defensive and prejudiced drivel snipped]

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening" (c) Bill Zaumen.

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 to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct
2004:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

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.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little
harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but
only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally
irritating/dangerous road user.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote in message
:

Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time.

Arguably so, but given that it was (a) a tired restatement of
well-rehearsed arguments and (b) cross-posted to the cycling
newsgroup, it was unlikely ever to be seen as such. We have become
very tired on urc of hearing these arguments used to excuse all
dangerous behaviour by other road users, call for enforcement against
cyclists in preference to other road users who by any measure pose
much more danger, to call for cyclists to be subjected to absurd and
draconian regulation, or even simply to undermine the right of
cyclists to use the road at all.

So maybe it was a reflex brain fart on the part of the PP, but given
his subsequent defence of his posting I am inclined to think not.

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 Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct
2004:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

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.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little
harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but
only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally
irritating/dangerous road user.

Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he
suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false
conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else....
--
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 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:25:50 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he
suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false
conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else....

Can you see out of your mouth with your head up there?

Just curious.

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 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:01:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:25:50 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he
suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false
conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else....

Can you see out of your mouth with your head up there?

Heavy irony.
--
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