Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Come on, that's nonsense. In the second picture you can see that pedestrians are still using the path, and both types of users are sharing the space. In the first picture the path has been taken completely, and pedestrians have to go into the road. A mum with a pushchair and perhaps a child or two on foot, walking downhill, has to walk the whole of her brood into the road with their backs to the traffic. It is very dangerous and totally unacceptable.
Looks like there is still space for a pushchairThere is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
johnwilliams77 said:
Looks like there is still space for a pushchair
There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
Fantastic. Let the peasants know their place, eh?There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
Jesus I am embarrassed to be a motorist at times. My fellow drivers are such w
kers.johnwilliams77 said:
Looks like there is still space for a pushchair
There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
Last time a checked most mum's with pushchairs don't carry the petrol powered chainsaw that would be required to chop down the 40 sign, even if they manage to squeeze past the car.There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
Crossing the road there would be great fun as well. A blind corner and people accelerating to get through the lights.
Do you really want your partner and kids to put up with that? Just so some fat t
t doesn't have to walk to get his takeaway.johnwilliams77 said:
Looks like there is still space for a pushchair
There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
Well that's OK then. All sorted. There is no requirement anyway to walk with your back to the traffic, they could cross the road and walk towards the traffic.
"Sorry love, you'll just have to cross this busy traffic light controlled junction which has no dedicated pedestrian crossing phase, then cross back over this busy road a few hundred yards further down. But it's OK, because this fat useless oxygen thief doesn't have to waddle too far to the Chinese now."
Far too many apologists for drivers acting the t
t on here. Most of them the very same people who'd call 'Mave' out for being a hypocrite for riding a bicycle on a quiet, under-used footway out of courtesy to drivers who'd otherwise be MASSIVELY INCONVENIENCED ( 
) by him riding uphill on the carriageway.Drivers? They're ALL w
kers!Errrrm? So... If I have a foot in both camps, what does that mean? Am I only half as ignorant as someone who only drives? What if I also walk? A third as ignorant? If I jog too? More or less of a w
ker? God, this is soooooo confusing. Someone needs to publish a chart. Perhaps points based. Just so that we all know where we stand in this mythical "pecking order" where might is seen to be right by the dribbling unenlightened. Parking on the FOOTWAY? There's a rhyme for that. "Mirror, mirror, on the floor, shouldn't you be on the door?"
frisbee said:
Last time a checked most mum's with pushchairs don't carry the petrol powered chainsaw that would be required to chop down the 40 sign, even if they manage to squeeze past the car.
Crossing the road there would be great fun as well. A blind corner and people accelerating to get through the lights.
Do you really want your partner and kids to put up with that? Just so some fat tt doesn't have to walk to get his takeaway.
To be fair, a pushchair or wheelchair could probably squeeze between fatty's 4x4 and the speed limit pole. It's the lamp post that he's tucked his rear quarter right up against that I think Chris Froome would have difficulty squeezing past sideways.Crossing the road there would be great fun as well. A blind corner and people accelerating to get through the lights.
Do you really want your partner and kids to put up with that? Just so some fat t
t doesn't have to walk to get his takeaway.As a registered disabled (sensory, not mobility issues) ex-serviceman, I find this attitude quite bizarre, and frankly disgusting. Many is the time I've seen cars parked like this displaying a 'Help For Heroes' sticker. What f
king use are your pennies in a jar if you are going to selfishly disrupt the lives, and endanger the safety of disabled people or the infirm like this. I know people with limb loss who'd far rather you keep your money and just play nice with society generally.A few months ago I had to stop in Reading to help a large chap out of the carriageway when his mobility scooter fell over. He was trying to squeeze past a car parked fully on the footway, but he got too close to the kerb while trying to avoid damaging the car, and the wheels slipped over the edge. It took three people to lift him, and the scooter out of the carriageway to safety. But Heaven forbid some lazy
has to park around the corner and walk a few yards to avoid inconveniencing folk who have no choice but to use these footways to get about. And all the time there's the wailing defence of "I didn't want to block the road". Well newsflash, f
knuggets. The FOOTWAY is part of the ROAD. The other part is called the CARRIAGEWAY and it's where CARriages belong. If you cannot park you CARriage without obstructing the CARRIAGEWAY then you really need to find somewhere more convenient for EVERYONE, not use the FOOTWAY simply because it's more convenient for YOU, you selfish, ignorant, arrogant bunch of pricks......but still, it's two-abreast cyclists that are the REAL scourge of modern life, eh!
Bloody cyclists on the pavement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guqyX9PfoYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0kWWRylBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guqyX9PfoYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0kWWRylBE
yellowjack said:
. Someone needs to publish a chart. Perhaps points based. Just so that we all know where we stand in this mythical "pecking order" where might is seen to be right by the dribbling unenlightened.
Well at the top of the order would be the one paying "road tax", remember ? DoubleD said:
No excuse for bad parking or for vandalism.
Who mentioned vandalism?Tens of thousands of car collisions are written off as "accidents" every single year. Costs go 50/50, and all our insurance premiums climb sky high to account for drivers' ineptitude. But if a car that was ILLEGALLY OBSTRUCTING THE HIGHWAY were to become accidentally damaged by someone trying to utilise the footway for it's designed purpose, then that would HAVE to be deliberate, and we'd need to break out the pitchforks and torches???
You really couldn't make this s
t up...WinstonWolf said:
Bloody cyclists on the pavement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guqyX9PfoYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0kWWRylBE
Nope. Staged videos. Must have been, no other explanation for it. That sort of selfish idiocy NEVER happens. Two Black Lines will be along shortly to tell us as much. Perhaps he'd also be kind enough to tell us what the moon is made of too? Apparently it's not ' moon rock ' but some form of dairy based product...??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guqyX9PfoYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye0kWWRylBE
Are the f
kwits on PH really so blinkered by their anti-cyclist rhetoric that they can no longer accept that there is fault on both sides of this divide? It's like trying to teach Shakespeare to a dog turd, trying to have any sort of intelligent discussion with some of the worst of these idiots... yellowjack said:
Nope. Staged videos. Must have been, no other explanation for it. That sort of selfish idiocy NEVER happens. Two Black Lines will be along shortly to tell us as much. Perhaps he'd also be kind enough to tell us what the moon is made of too? Apparently it's not ' moon rock ' but some form of dairy based product...???
Are the fkwits on PH really so blinkered by their anti-cyclist rhetoric that they can no longer accept that there is fault on both sides of this divide? It's like trying to teach Shakespeare to a dog turd, trying to have any sort of intelligent discussion with some of the worst of these idiots...
Why so angry?Are the f
kwits on PH really so blinkered by their anti-cyclist rhetoric that they can no longer accept that there is fault on both sides of this divide? It's like trying to teach Shakespeare to a dog turd, trying to have any sort of intelligent discussion with some of the worst of these idiots... yellowjack said:
Well that's OK then. All sorted.
"Sorry love, you'll just have to cross this busy traffic light controlled junction which has no dedicated pedestrian crossing phase, then cross back over this busy road a few hundred yards further down. But it's OK, because this fat useless oxygen thief doesn't have to waddle too far to the Chinese now."
Far too many apologists for drivers acting the tt on here. Most of them the very same people who'd call 'Mave' out for being a hypocrite for riding a bicycle on a quiet, under-used footway out of courtesy to drivers who'd otherwise be MASSIVELY INCONVENIENCED ( ) by him riding uphill on the carriageway.
Drivers? They're ALL wkers!
Parking on the FOOTWAY? There's a rhyme for that. "Mirror, mirror, on the floor, shouldn't you be on the door?"
So those motorists should have parked further away in a legal car park to avoid breaking the law and walked back increasing their journey times buy a few minutes. Mave on the other hand doesn't have to obey the law and is quite within his rights to cycle on the path so not to increase his journey time by a few minutes.. "Sorry love, you'll just have to cross this busy traffic light controlled junction which has no dedicated pedestrian crossing phase, then cross back over this busy road a few hundred yards further down. But it's OK, because this fat useless oxygen thief doesn't have to waddle too far to the Chinese now."
Far too many apologists for drivers acting the t
t on here. Most of them the very same people who'd call 'Mave' out for being a hypocrite for riding a bicycle on a quiet, under-used footway out of courtesy to drivers who'd otherwise be MASSIVELY INCONVENIENCED ( ) by him riding uphill on the carriageway.Drivers? They're ALL w
kers!Parking on the FOOTWAY? There's a rhyme for that. "Mirror, mirror, on the floor, shouldn't you be on the door?"
If you weren't a vandal and hadn't smashed that wing mirror off you could have used it to see who the real hypocrites are.
mygoldfishbowl said:
So those motorists should have parked further away in a legal car park to avoid breaking the law and walked back increasing their journey times buy a few minutes. Mave on the other hand doesn't have to obey the law and is quite within his rights to cycle on the path so not to increase his journey time by a few minutes..
If you weren't a vandal and hadn't smashed that wing mirror off you could have used it to see who the real hypocrites are.
Again. No vandalism took place. I made up a silly rhyme. No fIf you weren't a vandal and hadn't smashed that wing mirror off you could have used it to see who the real hypocrites are.
ktards had their cars damaged. Leastways not by me, anyway.And I STRONGLY disagree with you on who the REAL hypocrites are.
That honour goes to drivers who foam and froth about cyclists, telling said cyclists to "get off the roads - you don't even pay for them" then telling those cyclists that riding on "shared use paths" is "dangerous". That's true hypocrisy right there. Wanting it to work in your favour both ways.
Now run along and let us all know if it's possible to eat your cake but then still have it...
Truly couldn't make this b
ks up... heebeegeetee said:
yellowjack said:
. Someone needs to publish a chart. Perhaps points based. Just so that we all know where we stand in this mythical "pecking order" where might is seen to be right by the dribbling unenlightened.
Well at the top of the order would be the one paying "road tax", remember ? After all, LGV/HGV owners/operators/drivers pay the most "road tax", right? So they surely ought to be allowed to drive three or four abreast across all the lanes of all our motorways at any time of the day or night? After all, "They paid more for the privilege"...
...or does this pecking order bulls
t only apply when it suits selfish morons?mygoldfishbowl said:
So those motorists should have parked further away in a legal car park to avoid breaking the law and walked back increasing their journey times buy a few minutes. Mave on the other hand doesn't have to obey the law and is quite within his rights to cycle on the path so not to increase his journey time by a few minutes..
If you weren't a vandal and hadn't smashed that wing mirror off you could have used it to see who the real hypocrites are.
Conveniently miss the part where he states it is to avoid holding up motorists? He could quite happily carry on cycling on the road, he won't have to slow for a few seconds to mount the curb and he won't have to slow to re-join the road.If you weren't a vandal and hadn't smashed that wing mirror off you could have used it to see who the real hypocrites are.
Care to explain how blocking the pavement so they can pick up your greasy Chinese helps anyone else?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff