edcam

I don't know why this thread has become bogged down in interpretation of statistics. Some cyclists just need to stop being dicks - that's all.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so ner-ner-na-ner-ner > > > "Ner-ner-na-ner-ner" was the sort of thing my kids > said when they were about six years old, Lady D. > Surely you can do better than that. LD's descent into such juvenile nonsense doesn't do her any favours (along with her inability to display any sense of reason.)

Foie gras anyone?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flawless timing Haruki! > > Fitch, the reason we are encouraged to use the > centre of the road or centre of a lane is to > prevent a car trying to overtake when the > road/lane is too narrow to pass safely. > > I always go to the centre on narrow roads/lanes > because I've been hit twice, by a car and a van > pushing past when there wasn't enough room. > > It pisses the motorists off who are behind, but I > cycle pretty fast so generally keep up with the > traffic flow anyway and even when I don't I > usually pass the pissed off motorist who screeched > past me, at the next lights. I'm a motorist and this doesn't piss me off. I'm sure it does some but here you are generalising about people. Somewhat hypocritically really, in light of your posts on this subject.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok for all of those hanging on my every word, yes > I do think there are arseholes on bikes who piss > people off by behaving badly, in addition to the > arseholes in cars and on foot who also piss people > off by behaving badly. I just don't believe the > incident described in the original post actually > happened. Are you happy now? > > For anyone who has participated in any of the many > previous cycling on pavement discussions, you may > remember that this has been my position > consistently throughout. > > As I said before, failure to join in with the > mantra, doesn't mean I disagree with the basic > premise. I just don't go in for > self-flaggellation to appease the wrath of the > anti-cycling majority. Why would the OP make something like that up though? Just to annoy you? This smacks of paranoia...

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > monkeylite Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Cycling to work today, another cyclist almost > > crashed into me by ignoring a red light. Would > be > > hospitalised if I did not stop in time. > Obviously > > *some* cyclists think that they are above the > law. > > He got lucky today. It could be a bus he will > be > > cycling into tomorrow. > > ... at which point henryb will be on here > defending said cyclist and quoting unrelated > statistics. And don't forget that doubt must be cast on monkeylite's post as it may be untrue, like the OP's according to some, so it may all be moot *raises eyes*

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > con?tro?ver?sy > 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or > contention; disputation concerning a matter of > opinion. > 2.contention, strife, or argument. > > He/she posted something that he/she knew would > cause prolonged public dispute, ipso facto, it was > a controversial post. > > And if there was no cyclist in any case, then your > second & third points are moot. SO you agree that the fourth point is completely accurate?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The OP dropped a controversial bomb, sat back and > watched the resultant fire. > > No reason to believe the OP on that basis. A "controversial bomb"? Hardly. The cyclist's behaviour as described was unacceptable. No reason to disbelieve them either. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there are many antisocial cyclists, making life harder for everyone, not least other cyclists.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edcam Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This thread isn't about car drivers, > > No it is about a someone seeing a tail end of a > public barney on the street that possibly involved > pavement cycling and then thinking it would be a > good idea to drag on to the internet. A lesson for > us all maybe. Not sure where you get the "probably" from, unless you're doubting the OP's word?

This thread isn't about car drivers, many of whom I think we all acknowledge drive badly and dangerously. It's about cyclists behaving dangerously. It's just a little tedious and embarrassing that certain posters won't acknowledge that some cyclists are dicks.

I'd say a bit of investigation would have been appropriate before posting about this.

Yes but that's a TV sales/showcase event - mainly for distributors/producers etc. Film stars don't go to that.

What "big annual sales agent thing" Pokertime? Not sure you've got that right. They moved it because having it after the Oscars meant nobody cared or bothered to attend.

Hope you're ok PFontaine.

Bastards.

Helen Mirren is starting to irritate me. Something terribly smug about her.

This thread is fun.

Some of the highlights are obvious, yes but really worthwhile. Particularly some of the Gaudi landmarks (the Sagrada Familia, Casa Battllo, Casa Mila.) All amazing.

Lady Delilah's inability to accept that some (not all) cyclists deserve criticism means we can only conclude that she has problems understanding some fairly straightforward and unambiguous postings or that she believes antisocial cycling is acceptable. At no point has anybody suggested that these criticisms are aimed at ALL cyclists, as that would be unfair and inaccurate. As showboat says, she rather undermines her own argument with her stance.

Hilarious that the usual suspects still refuse to accept that the behaviour of some cyclists is unreasonable. I don't see anyone here bashing all cyclists, just the idiots. And I don't care what the Home Office says, cycling on the pavement is antisocial. As is the behaviour of many motorists but that wasn't the subject of this thread. There are threads here about that subject and I don't see many car drivers getting defensive, because most of them accept that some motorists are dicks. Most odd that some cyclists can't do the same.

Agree with Otta. The inability of some of the "cyclists" that appear on these threads to be reasonable merely strengthens the arguments against antisocial cycling (which is becoming more of a problem in London, there's no doubt.)

This is when the forum starts to get creepy.

It's a problem that's definitely getting worse. And I agree it gives the cyclists with a brain or an iota of respect for others a bad name.

V sad. Great work though Bryan. If it had been one of our cats I'd have been hugely indebted. Hats off to you.

None of the above alters the fact that "Babylon" was a pile of turd.