Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() |
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 |