bike lanes again

[Wuffles]

Troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lons]

It's very easy to dismiss any statistics that don't support your argument,

At least you agree with me on something, pretty much what I said so right back at you. :wink:

The opinions of your pals don't surprise me in the slightest, though they might make you take the stats a little more seriously.

Hmm.. They might not agree and feel you're also prejudiced against the police. 5 of them there today, I is a traffic cop btw and another an advanced police driving instructor, and you're making assumptions again, I know exactly what they said to me about stats - you weren't there so you dont!

The overtaking bit I left in as acknowledgement that the rider was in the wrong. His error was to be too close (and the hands issue), so could not react quickly enough to the dangerous driving. If he had been riding more safely he would have been able to stop in time.

Not the way I read it! But agreed with me again - bloody hell are you feeling ok? :lol:

Why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that drivers make mistakes?

Making things up again as you go along. I've never said that drivers don't make mistakes, actually the opposite and though I said the cyclist was at fault I also said the taxi driver isn't blameless!

You're going around in ever decreasing circles and digging those potholes even deeper. So.... you win....I give up... no sensible arguments possible from a guy with severely restricted tunnel vision and I can't be bothered any more! :roll:

Bye bye, have fun on your little machine and don't let the nasty HGVs bite you on the backside or you might be missing your head. :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[andys wood shed]

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/close- ... ops/020060 =D>

 

[RogerS]

Here we go again.

 

[Jacob]

Here Roger goes again! :lol:

 

[RogerS]

Here Roger goes again! :lol:

Well, let's examine that article shall we ?

First off...

The police force statement says "analysis of collisions shows that in ...[crashes on the road involving cars and bicycles] the blame would lie solely with the driver not the cyclist."

Just great. Leaving aside the actual figures that RoSpa provide which contradicts this statement ..thinks "Wonder just what has prompted West Midlands to bring this out now? New Chief 'Cycles-R-Me' Constable perhaps".....we now have the WMP throwing away, by making this statement, the whole concept of English law...viz..innocent until proven guilty.

And what's this all about ? "Pavement cycling might be a nuisance to some but is not, says the police statement, a "priority for a force like our own in a modern day society." Well that says "F**k you, pedestrians, old people, children etc". Brilliant. Just brilliant. Carte blanche? "Only about 20 pedestrians are "seriously injured" each year by riders taking to the pavement." source The Times.

But we've been here ad nauseam. According to some posters here, cyclists are above reproach and can do no wrong. Pity this thread was resurrected by a pro-cyclist jumping on his soapbox and tub-thumping.

Can we please lock the thread now ?

EDIT: Just Googled the actual press release/blog. http://road.cc/content/news/204164-west ... -motorists

The article in Woodshed's post is typical reporting by the cycling-fascists. But hey...when did facts get in the way ?

And some definitive reporting here https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com

 

[Lons]

Pity this thread was resurrected by a pro-cyclist jumping on his soapbox and tub-thumping.

By a bike riding troll perhaps Roger? :wink: Guess he's feeling bored again and looking to ruffle some feathers. :lol: :lol:

 

[Jacob]

You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:

 

[RogerS]

You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:

 

[andys wood shed]

You ought to get a bike Roger - I'm sure it'd be good for you! :lol:

He would be panting out of his backside... Instead of talking out of it