TonyPrice Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Whoops - my bad. I misunderstood your posts, and realise that yes, you had made clear that you don't do this. Apologies ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 13:23 ---------- Have you read the thread title, or the OP? The subject of the thread is the animosity of motorists towards cyclists. Have you read my posts where I clearly state that I have been reading numerous cycling based threads and me posting on this one is pretty random to be honest, it could have been any of them? Bigots aren't interested in facts. They just want to hate. Name calling? You have just answered the question in the thread title. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 17:42 ---------- Does justify it. Two Home Secretaries, stop trying to downplay them as random MPs. The law will get changed eventually, I'm sure. Until then I'll stay on the road or the cycle path. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 15:00 ---------- Yes, but as it's been done to death I simply can't be bothered. It's like vexatious FOI requests. You pretend to be ignorant of the facts and I have to waste 10 minutes of my life educating you. I imagine that like most children you and I both learnt to ride on a quiet residential street. You're suggesting making that a crime. They were not personal opinions. They were official guidance issued to the police. Tony Blair telling us about WOMD justified the Iraq war then? After all he WAS the GOVERNMENT. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 17:45 ---------- Because it took place on the playground. Would you also think teaching dancing by seating people down and describing how it is done is useful? Learning to ride on the roads [as opposed to learning to ride a bike] needs to be done on the road and with traffic. Bikeability is about riding safely on the road, not about teaching people how to ride a bike from scratch, although it teaches you cycling skills that are specific to riding on road before going out. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 14:49 ---------- You forget to mention idiot pedestrians who walk out of shops expecting everyone else to jump out of their way or onto the road without looking and so on.... Not an excuse, driver's endangering one's life is a perfectly valid reason to ride on a pavement free of pedestrians and again cycling on the pavement is not really an issue. It like worrying about a bee flying around when people are shooting at you. The bee or in this case cyclists are not the thing you should prioritise as the problem. As for occasional numpty riding a bike stupidly, just be thankful they are not in a car. The problem that even people like yourself who actually admit it's only a percentage of drivers/cyclists causing problems is one of proportionality. Thousands of deaths a year result from vehicles and very rarely does a bicycle ever result in a death, yet people waste time complaining about a non issue. What are the figures for people jumping out of shops and killing pedestrians? I guess it's pretty low so by your own standards they are doing no wrong and therefore shouldn't be brought into the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Have you read my posts where I clearly state that I have been reading numerous cycling based threads and me posting on this one is pretty random to be honest, it could have been any of them? Yes, which makes it all the more odd that you would respond in such a manner when I object to you saying that cyclists shouldn't talk about motorists in a thread about motorist's attitudes towards cyclists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyPrice Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yes, which makes it all the more odd that you would respond in such a manner when I object to you saying that cyclists shouldn't talk about motorists in a thread about motorist's attitudes towards cyclists. Could you emphasise a little more about the manner in which I have responded please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Could you emphasise a little more about the manner in which I have responded please? The manner in which you have responded[/i Oh, sorry, did you mean elaborate? OK then... 1. You berate cyclists for mentioning motorists bad behaviour on a thread about cycling, only you do so on a thread about motorist's bad attitudes towards cyclists. 2. I point out the irony of this. 3. You reply by repeating the point that you'd made, that for some reason you'd read all the posts that had anything to do with cycling and then replied on a random one ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 18:34 ---------- How about for your next trick you read all the posts about supermarkets and then choose one about Tescos to post that people shouldn't talk about Tesco on a Sainsbury's thread? Edited June 3, 2015 by mattleonard Incomplete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyPrice Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The manner in which you have responded[/i Oh, sorry, did you mean elaborate? OK then... 1. You berate cyclists for mentioning motorists bad behaviour on a thread about cycling, only you do so on a thread about motorist's bad attitudes towards cyclists. 2. I point out the irony of this. 3. You reply by repeating the point that you'd made, that for some reason you'd read all the posts that had anything to do with cycling and then replied on a random one 1. I have not "berated" anyone. 2. I mention the fact that cyclists are using the poor driving of motorists as an excuse for their own wrong doing. 3. I have not made anything up here, it is all what I have read on the threads posted I might add by so called cyclists. 4. I HAVE stated that cyclists, from what I have read have a tremendous chip on their shoulder, a fact that you seem to confirm by your attitude in the above posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Tony Blair telling us about WOMD justified the Iraq war then? After all he WAS the GOVERNMENT. You can't see the difference between instructions given to the police by the home secretary, and an opinion presented to the nation by the PM? What are the figures for people jumping out of shops and killing pedestrians? I guess it's pretty low so by your own standards they are doing no wrong and therefore shouldn't be brought into the mix. They're zero, so no, there's absolutely no need to talk about them with regards to road safety. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 18:46 ---------- Could you emphasise a little more about the manner in which I have responded please? The manner whereby you keep telling cyclists not to justify behaviour by reference to the motorists who are complaining about that behaviour. You know. Motorist says "you all jump lights" Cyclist says "no we don't, but you speed" Pointing out the hypocrisy... And then you pop up and say "Stop bringing motorists behaviour into it", as if it's somehow irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyPrice Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 You can't see the difference between instructions given to the police by the home secretary, and an opinion presented to the nation by the PM? They're zero, so no, there's absolutely no need to talk about them with regards to road safety. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 18:46 ---------- The manner whereby you keep telling cyclists not to justify behaviour by reference to the motorists who are complaining about that behaviour. You know. Motorist says "you all jump lights" Cyclist says "no we don't, but you speed" Pointing out the hypocrisy... And then you pop up and say "Stop bringing motorists behaviour into it", as if it's somehow irrelevant. Why the puzzled look? I was replying to another poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 1. I have not "berated" anyone. 2. I mention the fact that cyclists are using the poor driving of motorists as an excuse for their own wrong doing. They aren't, they are simply pointing out the hypocrisy of some motorists. 4. I HAVE stated that cyclists, from what I have read have a tremendous chip on their shoulder, a fact that you seem to confirm by your attitude in the above posts. You've joined the thread, been an arse, and when you get a response you use that as evidence that cyclists don't like people who act the arse. Well done. ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 18:48 ---------- Why the puzzled look? I was replying to another poster And I was replying to you. And that's rolling my eyes, this is puzzled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyPrice Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 To the above two posters, it is evident it is pointless discussing anything more with you. You have your views and rightly so, I have mine. We will agree to disagree, I do not however understand why you both feel the need to edit your posts AFTER I have replied, especially you Cyclone, the statement I wrote about the puzzled look was directed at the emoticon you posted, blue face and scratching head = confused, scratches head as you well know. Why you then edited your post to try and make I was writing about the roll eyes one I don't know. But, I have enjoyed shooting the breeze but I will now bow out and bid you all a good evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yes, but as it's been done to death I simply can't be bothered. It's like vexatious FOI requests. You pretend to be ignorant of the facts and I have to waste 10 minutes of my life educating you. In other words, no, fair enough if the so called "facts" dont exist im sure you can always invent them. So you think that I already know the obvious "facts" but for some reason I just want to irritate you by asking for them? Well I dont, and I admit it, otherwise I wouldnt have asked for them, but I gather from your reply you dont have them either ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 19:51 ---------- You can't see the difference between instructions given to the police by the home secretary, and an opinion presented to the nation by the PM? Thats interesting, so you consider an opinion from an home secretary about cycling to be a dictate to the police instead of what should have been a law change and a statement from the PM as to why we were going to war was merely an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts