wanted and furious driving(riding). Court case.
Discussion
IroningMan said:
Finlandia said:
Car-Matt said:
Thankfully she is about as representative of cyclists as Cb1965 is of unbiased rational discussion
Unfortunately, where I live, her views are shared by many cyclists/green party members 
Too much exposure to self-assembly furniture: it's enough to make anyone flap their arms about.
Could be, but there's a time and a place, and this greenie didn't get neither right.
TroubledSoul said:
Wow... Just... Wow.
If you had any credibility left, you just shredded it right there. He mentioned cyclists putting themselves in danger, explained that he doesn't want to hurt or kill someone or end up in altercations so has gone to extra lengths that he shouldn't have to just to avoid such, and that's what you respond with?
Mind. Blown.
It's his standard defence - anything cyclists do is OK because some drivers do bad things too! To be frank I fully believe that any cyclist riding around in the dark with no lights is unlikely to have an IQ that will be enhancing the advance of the human race any time soon, but even so I couldn't live with myself if I caused them an injury or worse therefore I just find it easier to avoid situations where I deem the risk too high. Does it wind me up? Yes, a little, but I've learned from trying to reason with the thick ****s that they actually genuinely think what they are doing is OK and in that case I will not waste my time trying to communicate with them as frankly we are just at two different ends of the intellectual spectrum!If you had any credibility left, you just shredded it right there. He mentioned cyclists putting themselves in danger, explained that he doesn't want to hurt or kill someone or end up in altercations so has gone to extra lengths that he shouldn't have to just to avoid such, and that's what you respond with?
Mind. Blown.
cb1965 said:
It's his standard defence - anything cyclists do is OK because some drivers do bad things too! To be frank I fully believe that any cyclist riding around in the dark with no lights is unlikely to have an IQ that will be enhancing the advance of the human race any time soon, but even so I couldn't live with myself if I caused them an injury or worse therefore I just find it easier to avoid situations where I deem the risk too high. Does it wind me up? Yes, a little, but I've learned from trying to reason with the thick ****s that they actually genuinely think what they are doing is OK and in that case I will not waste my time trying to communicate with them as frankly we are just at two different ends of the intellectual spectrum!
You really aren't that bright yourself you know. You spout loads of unsubstantiated nonsense, you talk the talk of the numpty. You talk the talk of a commuter, who is the worst driver on the roads. You never talk like an experienced or wise motorist. Nobody is saying that bad cyclists are ok, you're just wrong yet again as you frequently are. You frequently miss the point, wilfully or otherwise.
You posted about some bad riding. Do you think it's a big deal? There have been piss poor pedestrians, cyclists and drivers since day one and they'll be around until kingdom come. The scenario you described has possibly been occurring since before the car was invented, but you obviously think it's noteworthy. To your credit though, you managed to work out to deal with your little situation.
At least the t
ts on foot or two wheels tend to only hurt themselves, whereas tts driving vehicles tend to hurt others far too much, so yes, I think they are worse. And of course, from your point of view, anyone not wanting to join in the bog standard language of the numpty, is in your view 'defending ' or 'trivialising' or defending that t
t on his fixie, or whatever. I mean you really don't get it, do you?
heebeegeetee said:
You really aren't that bright yourself you know. You spout loads of unsubstantiated nonsense, you talk the talk of the numpty. You talk the talk of a commuter, who is the worst driver on the roads. You never talk like an experienced or wise motorist.
Several paragraphs of more bks ...
No not a commuter, just someone who picks someone disabled up from the centre of London every now and then..... I told her what you said about the fact that we should all be cycling rather than driving.... she said you sounded like a blinkered sanctimonious cretin... I said I was surprised she had you nailed already Several paragraphs of more b
ks ... 
TroubledSoul said:
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
Do you have any figures to back that up?
What was that about credibility...?TroubledSoul said:
As for the other stuff, I've decided to take the heebeegeetee approach and ignore it as I can't really be arsed.
I think you'll find that's CB1965's approach - "I can refute what you're saying, but I just can't be bothered." What that means is (a) you can't refute it or (b) you won't acknowledge where you are wrong. What is the point in engaging in discussions if you won't respond when challenged? It's bizarre.TroubledSoul said:
The apologists will only twist the quotes.
And this is particularly good when it was you who has sought to twist what others have said, and when challenged to support that assertion have been unable (you would say unwilling) to do so.Where are all these "apologists" and what are they apologising for?
heebeegeetee said:
You posted about some bad riding. Do you think it's a big deal? There have been piss poor pedestrians, cyclists and drivers since day one and they'll be around until kingdom come. The scenario you described has possibly been occurring since before the car was invented, but you obviously think it's noteworthy.
Being able to take into account the potential for poor behaviour of others is a mark of a good driver/rider.....will_ said:
I think you'll find that's CB1965's approach - "I can refute what you're saying, but I just can't be bothered." What that means is (a) you can't refute it or (b) you won't acknowledge where you are wrong. What is the point in engaging in discussions if you won't respond when challenged? It's bizarre.
It's not, it's a combination of the fact that I don't have as much time to waste on hear as you and your cohorts and it wouldn't matter what evidence was presented to you as you will never have your mind changed by something you read in a forum... let's face it we're all pretty much entrenched in our opinions, only yours is wrong of course!heebeegeetee said:
Nobody is saying that bad cyclists are ok, you're just wrong yet again as you frequently are. You frequently miss the point, wilfully or otherwise.
So which is worse, missing the point or trying to divert the topic to avoid awkward questions? You are a world level expert at both.
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
Do you have any figures to back that up?
What was that about credibility...?
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
As for the other stuff, I've decided to take the heebeegeetee approach and ignore it as I can't really be arsed.
I think you'll find that's CB1965's approach - "I can refute what you're saying, but I just can't be bothered." What that means is (a) you can't refute it or (b) you won't acknowledge where you are wrong. What is the point in engaging in discussions if you won't respond when challenged? It's bizarre.will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
The apologists will only twist the quotes.
And this is particularly good when it was you who has sought to twist what others have said, and when challenged to support that assertion have been unable (you would say unwilling) to do so.Where are all these "apologists" and what are they apologising for?
heebeegeetee said:
cb1965 said:
Actually it's funny you should say something like that. Here's a real world example of a junction I use a lot and where I often decide to add a few minutes to my route rather than take the chance of 'killing' a cyclist.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4936058,-0.10043...
I am travelling in the direction of the white van but want to turn left. If you look the road markings indicate you should filter into the left hand turning lane just before the cycle lane starts at the end of the bus lane. Now imagine it's winter and dark and wet and I am in the lane next to the bus lane indicating to turn left .... there are a lot of cyclists coming up the bus lane aiming for the cycle lane. In my mirror I can see those with their lights on and of course none of them are prepared to stop and let you across... why would they, they're cyclists in London
What I cannot see though are the ones with no lights.... and that will be at least 20% of them. So what do I do? Well after a few verbal altercations with the bell ends with no lights I have since decide it's not worth it so go straight on and add 5 minutes to my journey.... I do this do avoid either killing one or having to interact with those who think having no lights is their divine right and I should still be able to see them (despite the fact the ones with no lights seem to dress in black to add to the 'challenge') as life's just too short. In summer it's fine, but in winter when it's dark/wet during rush hour it's a lottery there and sadly winter is approaching. Ah well, bless them as they're saving the planet!
So in other words, having to share the roads with other traffic is costing you time, but what's really bothering you is that this traffic is different to you and therefore shouldn't be allowed?https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4936058,-0.10043...
I am travelling in the direction of the white van but want to turn left. If you look the road markings indicate you should filter into the left hand turning lane just before the cycle lane starts at the end of the bus lane. Now imagine it's winter and dark and wet and I am in the lane next to the bus lane indicating to turn left .... there are a lot of cyclists coming up the bus lane aiming for the cycle lane. In my mirror I can see those with their lights on and of course none of them are prepared to stop and let you across... why would they, they're cyclists in London
What I cannot see though are the ones with no lights.... and that will be at least 20% of them. So what do I do? Well after a few verbal altercations with the bell ends with no lights I have since decide it's not worth it so go straight on and add 5 minutes to my journey.... I do this do avoid either killing one or having to interact with those who think having no lights is their divine right and I should still be able to see them (despite the fact the ones with no lights seem to dress in black to add to the 'challenge') as life's just too short. In summer it's fine, but in winter when it's dark/wet during rush hour it's a lottery there and sadly winter is approaching. Ah well, bless them as they're saving the planet!IroningMan said:
The Mad Monk said:
heebeegeetee said:
He pleaded not guilty, so who does he think is responsible for his van striking the child on the pavement? It seems he does not recall telling a policeman that the child ran out in front of him.
A plea of 'not guilty' means 'let the evidence be heard'.It doesn't mean 'not me guv, i wasn't there - it weren't my fault'.
Here's another:
Retroman said:
Mr2Mike said:
I must have missed the bit where his van had no front brakes and the driver then posted on social media that it was the girl's fault?
Ahh that's a good point. I forgot it's ok to run over children on pavements and kill them as long as your vehicle is roadworthy and you don't act like a bell end after it.IroningMan said:
PH closes in a little more on jumping the shark in its efforts to defend any road user who isn't riding a bicycle.
Exactly.Dammit said:
REALIST123 said:
Maybe not, I guess she didn't expect a moron to be shooting down the road out of control.
Some tougher legislation for cyclists seems well overdue.
This thread has already shown that the very mention of cycling is a lightning rod for the PH lunatic fringe and no doubt it will turn into the standard cesspool forthwith.
Crack on chaps, you can start calling for cycling to carry the death penalty if you want?
I've more than proven my point.
TroubledSoul said:
William, I announced my departure from any attempt at meaningful discussion as it's very clear it is pointless with some of you - not from the thread.
.
Hmm:.
TroubledSoul said:
I don't feel the need to add anything further on this thread as it's clear it's mostly a waste of time.
Anyway.TroubledSoul said:
What's bizarre is proving a point, providing evidence and then it being completely glossed over and being told no, no, you're still wrong.
What's the point that you've "proven"?TroubledSoul said:
"If he'd been driving a car he'd never have been charged". Cry, cry, wail, wail, poor persecuted cyclists etc.
I've more than proven my point.
No you haven't - what you said was that posters had saidI've more than proven my point.
TroubledSoul said:
"Oh never mind what he did, car drivers have done X and Y...".
Has anyone said "never mind what he did"?It is a relevant part of the discussion to place how Alliston has been treated in the context of how motorists are treated for analogous events and culpability.
TroubledSoul said:
And before someone steps in with examples of motorists not being charged, please make sure it's a case where the car has no front brakes, the driver lied about the pedestrian being on the phone and the driver also made no attempt to slow down or else it's a waste of time
Do you really think that the circumstances have to be exactly replicated in order to be comparable?Also again you have stated something that is false (having failed once already to acknowledge that your assumptions about the state of Alliston's knowledge were not determined by the Court). Alliston did slow down, from 18mph to 14mph. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the facts as reported?
cb1965 said:
will_ said:
I think you'll find that's CB1965's approach - "I can refute what you're saying, but I just can't be bothered." What that means is (a) you can't refute it or (b) you won't acknowledge where you are wrong. What is the point in engaging in discussions if you won't respond when challenged? It's bizarre.
It's not, it's a combination of the fact that I don't have as much time to waste on hear as you and your cohorts and it wouldn't matter what evidence was presented to you as you will never have your mind changed by something you read in a forum... let's face it we're all pretty much entrenched in our opinions, only yours is wrong of course!You seem to have enough time to waste posting your bile on numerous cycling threads. Why not be more constructive? Why not educate yourself a bit before spouting off? Then you might realise that it is you who is wrong. Not, of course, that you would ever admit it.
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
You're showing yourself up Will. Just stop mate.
Get help.
TroubledSoul said:
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
You're showing yourself up Will. Just stop mate.
Get help.
will_ said:
TroubledSoul said:
William, I announced my departure from any attempt at meaningful discussion as it's very clear it is pointless with some of you - not from the thread.
.
Hmm:.
TroubledSoul said:
I don't feel the need to add anything further on this thread as it's clear it's mostly a waste of time.
Anyway.TroubledSoul said:
What's bizarre is proving a point, providing evidence and then it being completely glossed over and being told no, no, you're still wrong.
What's the point that you've "proven"?TroubledSoul said:
"If he'd been driving a car he'd never have been charged". Cry, cry, wail, wail, poor persecuted cyclists etc.
I've more than proven my point.
No you haven't - what you said was that posters had saidI've more than proven my point.
TroubledSoul said:
"Oh never mind what he did, car drivers have done X and Y...".
Has anyone said "never mind what he did"?It is a relevant part of the discussion to place how Alliston has been treated in the context of how motorists are treated for analogous events and culpability.
TroubledSoul said:
And before someone steps in with examples of motorists not being charged, please make sure it's a case where the car has no front brakes, the driver lied about the pedestrian being on the phone and the driver also made no attempt to slow down or else it's a waste of time
Do you really think that the circumstances have to be exactly replicated in order to be comparable?Also again you have stated something that is false (having failed once already to acknowledge that your assumptions about the state of Alliston's knowledge were not determined by the Court). Alliston did slow down, from 18mph to 14mph. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent the facts as reported?
k me. Triggered or wot m8. Anyway, hipster-boy's ringpiece will be as slack as his earlobes by now.
A good result. TroubledSoul said:
I've more than proven my point.
In your own mind. I'm only responding to restate, please don't think I'm a cyclist. I'm not, I'm a driver who is pissed off with s
t, tiny minded, selfish drivers of whom there are far too many abound. cb1965 said:
No not a commuter, just someone who picks someone disabled up from the centre of London every now and then..... I told her what you said about the fact that we should all be cycling rather than driving.... she said you sounded like a blinkered sanctimonious cretin... I said I was surprised she had you nailed already
Oh dear god, your poor relative... having you as a source of information.Fair comment about commuting, if true - because your "fact" about my saying we should all be cycling clearly isn't. What I seek, as you well know, is a much fairer use of the roads for all, and less of the car-is-king culture, which has proved to be entirely counter-productive for those wedded to the car, possibly like myself.
Sorry to say this though, but your friend/relative sounds like a typical little englander. She is blissful in her ignorance of what other neighbouring and near European countries do for the disabled on the roads.
Good cycling infrastructure is absolutely fantastic for the disabled to use. In northern Europe the disabled have access to a network of paved paths and shared lanes that give them a level of independence, freedom and opportunity for exercise and fresh air that your friend possibly can't imagine and has never seen.
The last time we were in Germany we were did miles and miles of rural roads that had good quality shared-use path alongside, used by cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. The disabled over there can independently travel from village to village, using either motability scooters or those hand-cranked wheelchairs. We did a ffair few miles in Germany, and of course as we crossed into Netherlands and Belgium we saw much the same.
So unfortunately we have yet another example of how people lose out thanks to those with an attitude like yours, even when in the case of your friend, they don't even begin to realise how they could benefit and how much they miss out on - and possibly have been doing so for decades.
will_ said:
cb1965 said:
will_ said:
I think you'll find that's CB1965's approach - "I can refute what you're saying, but I just can't be bothered." What that means is (a) you can't refute it or (b) you won't acknowledge where you are wrong. What is the point in engaging in discussions if you won't respond when challenged? It's bizarre.
It's not, it's a combination of the fact that I don't have as much time to waste on hear as you and your cohorts and it wouldn't matter what evidence was presented to you as you will never have your mind changed by something you read in a forum... let's face it we're all pretty much entrenched in our opinions, only yours is wrong of course!You seem to have enough time to waste posting your bile on numerous cycling threads. Why not be more constructive? Why not educate yourself a bit before spouting off? Then you might realise that it is you who is wrong. Not, of course, that you would ever admit it.
heebeegeetee said:
Sorry to say this though, but your friend/relative sounds like a typical little englander. She is blissful in her ignorance of what other neighbouring and near European countries do for the disabled on the roads.
Good cycling infrastructure is absolutely fantastic for the disabled to use. In northern Europe the disabled have access to a network of paved paths and shared lanes that give them a level of independence, freedom and opportunity for exercise and fresh air that your friend possibly can't imagine and has never seen.
The last time we were in Germany we were did miles and miles of rural roads that had good quality shared-use path alongside, used by cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. The disabled over there can independently travel from village to village, using either motability scooters or those hand-cranked wheelchairs. We did a ffair few miles in Germany, and of course as we crossed into Netherlands and Belgium we saw much the same.
So unfortunately we have yet another example of how people lose out thanks to those with an attitude like yours, even when in the case of your friend, they don't even begin to realise how they could benefit and how much they miss out on - and possibly have been doing so for decades.
She isn't in Germany, Belgium or any other of these Utopias you often espouse about. She's in London and I am laughing at the notion you think she should be able to make journeys like that on her own. Firstly you have no idea where she is travelling from or to and secondly as it involves crossing London she would likely fall foul of the idiot cyclists if she tried Good cycling infrastructure is absolutely fantastic for the disabled to use. In northern Europe the disabled have access to a network of paved paths and shared lanes that give them a level of independence, freedom and opportunity for exercise and fresh air that your friend possibly can't imagine and has never seen.
The last time we were in Germany we were did miles and miles of rural roads that had good quality shared-use path alongside, used by cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. The disabled over there can independently travel from village to village, using either motability scooters or those hand-cranked wheelchairs. We did a ffair few miles in Germany, and of course as we crossed into Netherlands and Belgium we saw much the same.
So unfortunately we have yet another example of how people lose out thanks to those with an attitude like yours, even when in the case of your friend, they don't even begin to realise how they could benefit and how much they miss out on - and possibly have been doing so for decades.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff