mattleonard Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'm not discussing my behaveour I'm discussing the topic which is:- Dangerous cyclists Wow, that one sentence is a whole strange loop of self-contradictory paradox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Stick to the topic; dangerous cyclists. If a cyclist doesn't (optionally) indicate and the motorist is obeying the highway code there is no danger. Isn't that right? So you're saying that cyclists are free to ride around willy nilly because motorists should nursemaid them, how troll:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Wow, that one sentence is a whole strange loop of self-contradictory paradox.Well at least you can't trick now youlost the plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 So you're saying that cyclists are free to ride around willy nilly because motorists should nursemaid them, how troll:loopy: No, he's saying cyclists should follow the Highway Code and so should motorists. Why is it nursemaiding to expect the motorist to obey the Highway Code? You keep banging on about how the cyclist should look over their shoulder, yet by the same standards that's just nursemaiding you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Well at least you can't trick now youlost the plot. No, you in one sentence explained both affirmed that you weren't explaining your behaviour and explained your behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 See how it writhes and squirms!No not squirming just sticking to the topic with other posters don't seem able to do they worm and squirm their way to try and change the topic away from cyclists who're dangerous for failing to observer the Highway Code which covers many offences not just failing to signal before a manoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshuga Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Always expect the unexpected with cyclists because let's not foreget they're allowed onto the road without any mandatory form of prior knowledge or experience, they can be the cause of accidents yet they carry no insurance. Cyclists should be made to take a profficiency test and also take out third party insurance before they're allowed ont the public roads. bassman62 - the above is YOUR opening salvo. You brought up the topic about expecting the unexpected (and later went on to say that you shouldn't have to - i.e. you were being sarcastic, later talking about nannying/nursemaiding cyclists around) - so we are reasoning with your point that anticipation is the key to driving. I, as a cyclist, have been on an advanced motorist course and passed the advanced test. Anticipation and defensive driving is key to your use of the road. What level of road expertise to you possess - your posts suggest you are offensive in the use of the roads? Your points about proficiency tests - we have also discussed those and shown that it would appear to make little difference to peoples behaviour - see my video linked above. Your point about insurance - this is currently optional and you can campaign to change the law if you wish. However such legislation would reduce uptake of cycling. Due to the "safety in numbers" effect this will have the effect of INCREASING injuries and deaths for ALL road users. Clearly the safety of others is not your priority as per your posts. You just don't like being held up is that it? We are sticking strictly to things that YOU brought up and mentioned. So will you take up the challenge of having an intelligent and reasoned debate or are you going to carry on like a spoilt child and carry on chanting "SHALLN'T" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 No not squirming just sticking to the topic with other posters don't seem able to do they worm and squirm their way to try and change the topic away from cyclists who're dangerous for failing to observer the Highway Code which covers many offences not just failing to signal before a manoever. Yeah, right. Squirmer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 This topic is about :-Dangerous cyclists do you have difficulty with that? Can't you read? You can't examine the behaviour of the cyclist without also considering the behaviour of the motorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 So you're saying that cyclists are free to ride around willy nilly because motorists should nursemaid them, how troll:loopy: So you're saying that you shouldn't have to drive properly because cyclists should avoid your bad driving. How hypocritical of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.