Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , says...
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:40 +0100 Conor wrote: While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers arn't immune from forgetting to indicate. It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the first exit. when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't forget to indicate. Irrelevent. AND If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate, You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew. I see you snipped the part about the trailer taking the same path. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
#202
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger Thorpe wrote:
The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others does not make him "open and honest". I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer might be. He quite openly boasted about it here on uk.transport. He seemed to find it very funny, and he had the perfect excuse "everyone does it". I've never seen him utter a word of regret. Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest". No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he regrets that action, Very Christian. However I think that several Emperors had the right attitude to Christian attitudes. And since I've never seen him utter a word of regret and I have seen him boast about his continuing excessive drinking, I don't see any sign of regret on the horizon. but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him. He deserves beating with something bigger than a stick. Can I send a virtual pick-axe handle to his detractors? |
#203
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:52:59 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote: snip At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it, I don't thinks that the Taylor and Chapman realise the harm they do - I don't think they do it intentionally. -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. |
#204
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#205
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Steve Firth
writes I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for that walnut-sized cat brain you have. Take that back, I like cats and I'm sure their brain is larger than a walnut, now Marz is a different matter. -- Clive |
#206
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:43 -0700 (PDT),
francis wrote: On Apr 15, 6:56*pm, Marz wrote: On Apr 15, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote: Marz wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you to do exactly that. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too. And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are. What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. Ah, another ****wit cyclist who thinks he is above the law. Is he typical or is he the type that give others a bad name? At least two cyclists (ok, one of them is me) have called him an idiot or worse on this thread. Anyone who uses their vehicle in a careless, dangerous or intimidatory manner should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. You make up your own mind. -- Andy Leighton = "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |
#207
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steve Firth" wrote in message .. . Colin Reed wrote: The recent posts from "Marz", who to me at least is a new one, have suggested that he would do more damage to a ped who deliberately shoulder charged him than he would suffer himself. Is this what you refer to as "terrorising pedestrians"? No, I refer to his admission that he barrels through pedestrians on crossings, even ignoring red lights to do so. And that he thinks it quite appropriate to force his way between the pedestrians who have a right to use the crossing when he does not. But it's nice to see the cyclists either (a) closing ranks or (b) refusing to see things from the point of the view of the vulnerable road user. Closing ranks in the way that I wrote "The general attitude and content of Marz's posts about red light jumping at non-busy crossings have already suggested that he may be a bit of an arse, and probably thought of one by many URC regulars. " and then you snipped it from your reply you mean? I think that says far more about how you want cyclists to behave rather than how they/we do. Colin |
#209
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:28:51 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote: Adrian wrote: "Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. Scotland fails to meet 6 of the 8 criteria of being a country. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm The clue is in the the fact that they have different names Is of no significance. they can call it "Caledonia" if they like. and different legal structures. Ditto. While laws governing Scotland are passed in England Scotland cannot be a country. Derek |
#210
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Clive gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for that walnut-sized cat brain you have. Take that back, I like cats and I'm sure their brain is larger than a walnut, now Marz is a different matter. I have a cat sat on my lap at the moment, preventing me from reaching the laptop easily. Even by cat standards, this gormless fluffbucket is thick as two short planks. However, even it pities Marz. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed | London Transport | |||
One-day Travelcard not allowed to be issued more than a week in advance? | London Transport | |||
Should David Cameron be allowed just to pay his £3 again... | London Transport | |||
Red lights in Criclewood, Harrow and elsewhere | London Transport | |||
Not Allowed To Use Pre-Pay Oyster For A Paper Ticket At Ticket Office? | London Transport |