|
|
|
date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:48:34 +0100,
group: uk.rec.cycling
back
Re: "But I was indicating!"
novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:49:45 +0100 the
perfect time to write:
>Squashme wrote:
>> On 22 Aug, 16:35, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug, 15:52,Squashme wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Aug, 13:15, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>> It was also rotten anticipation on the part of the cyclist. Why, when
>>>>> he saw her signalling, did he not simply slow down fractionally? What
>>>>> was to be gained by all that pissy self-righteous tooting and
>>>>> shouting. Yes, people do occasionally do things suboptimally - so
>>>>> what? We're all human, and little bit of give and take goes a long
>>>>> way.
>>>> Yes, it goes a long way towards the motorist not even noticing her own
>>>> stupidity. Why was she turning from the middle of the road, across the
>>>> nearside lane?
>>> Because there was a slow moving vehicle in the nearside lane, and
>>> faster moving vehicles are allowed to pas slower moving vehicles.
>>
>> They are not obliged to, are they? Especially if they are immediately
>> going to turn left? Or is it some Freudian thing?
>>
>>> If the cyclist hadn't done his nut as she passed - so that she slowed
>>> down to see what the matter was - she'd have been able to make the
>>> left turn well in front of him, from the nearside lane.
>>>
>>
>> She created the problem. Knowing that she wanted to turn left, she
>> should have stayed behind the bike in the nearside lane, until the
>> cyclist had passed the turning. Then she could have turned safely from
>> the nearside lane. All that she needed to do was anticipate. Just
>> needed a bit of "give and take" on her part.
>>
>You can be sanctimonious and flat, or whole and avoid the faster
>traffic. Make your selection... NOW.
But in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, etc*, cycles ARE the faster
traffic, so you'd better get those damned cages out of the way before
we all get mountain bikes and start riding over them.
*Just about any town during the crush hours.
date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:48:34 +0100
author: Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
|
Re: "But I was indicating!"
Phil W Lee wrote:
> novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:49:45 +0100 the
> perfect time to write:
>
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug, 16:35, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>> On 22 Aug, 15:52,Squashme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Aug, 13:15, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> It was also rotten anticipation on the part of the cyclist. Why, when
>>>>>> he saw her signalling, did he not simply slow down fractionally? What
>>>>>> was to be gained by all that pissy self-righteous tooting and
>>>>>> shouting. Yes, people do occasionally do things suboptimally - so
>>>>>> what? We're all human, and little bit of give and take goes a long
>>>>>> way.
>>>>> Yes, it goes a long way towards the motorist not even noticing her own
>>>>> stupidity. Why was she turning from the middle of the road, across the
>>>>> nearside lane?
>>>> Because there was a slow moving vehicle in the nearside lane, and
>>>> faster moving vehicles are allowed to pas slower moving vehicles.
>>> They are not obliged to, are they? Especially if they are immediately
>>> going to turn left? Or is it some Freudian thing?
>>>
>>>> If the cyclist hadn't done his nut as she passed - so that she slowed
>>>> down to see what the matter was - she'd have been able to make the
>>>> left turn well in front of him, from the nearside lane.
>>>>
>>> She created the problem. Knowing that she wanted to turn left, she
>>> should have stayed behind the bike in the nearside lane, until the
>>> cyclist had passed the turning. Then she could have turned safely from
>>> the nearside lane. All that she needed to do was anticipate. Just
>>> needed a bit of "give and take" on her part.
>>>
>> You can be sanctimonious and flat, or whole and avoid the faster
>> traffic. Make your selection... NOW.
>
> But in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, etc*, cycles ARE the faster
> traffic, so you'd better get those damned cages out of the way before
> we all get mountain bikes and start riding over them.
>
> *Just about any town during the crush hours.
I've probably been overtaken by a cyclist five times or less in my life.
The number of cyclists I've passed is beyond counting.
date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:01:44 +0100
author: novice
|
Re: "But I was indicating!"
Squashme wrote:
> On 22 Aug, 21:01, novice wrote:
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:49:45 +0100 the
>>> perfect time to write:
>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>> On 22 Aug, 16:35, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 15:52,Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 13:15, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>> It was also rotten anticipation on the part of the cyclist. Why, when
>>>>>>>> he saw her signalling, did he not simply slow down fractionally? What
>>>>>>>> was to be gained by all that pissy self-righteous tooting and
>>>>>>>> shouting. Yes, people do occasionally do things suboptimally - so
>>>>>>>> what? We're all human, and little bit of give and take goes a long
>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>> Yes, it goes a long way towards the motorist not even noticing her own
>>>>>>> stupidity. Why was she turning from the middle of the road, across the
>>>>>>> nearside lane?
>>>>>> Because there was a slow moving vehicle in the nearside lane, and
>>>>>> faster moving vehicles are allowed to pas slower moving vehicles.
>>>>> They are not obliged to, are they? Especially if they are immediately
>>>>> going to turn left? Or is it some Freudian thing?
>>>>>> If the cyclist hadn't done his nut as she passed - so that she slowed
>>>>>> down to see what the matter was - she'd have been able to make the
>>>>>> left turn well in front of him, from the nearside lane.
>>>>> She created the problem. Knowing that she wanted to turn left, she
>>>>> should have stayed behind the bike in the nearside lane, until the
>>>>> cyclist had passed the turning. Then she could have turned safely from
>>>>> the nearside lane. All that she needed to do was anticipate. Just
>>>>> needed a bit of "give and take" on her part.
>>>> You can be sanctimonious and flat, or whole and avoid the faster
>>>> traffic. Make your selection... NOW.
>>> But in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, etc*, cycles ARE the faster
>>> traffic, so you'd better get those damned cages out of the way before
>>> we all get mountain bikes and start riding over them.
>>> *Just about any town during the crush hours.
>> I've probably been overtaken by a cyclist five times or less in my life.
>> The number of cyclists I've passed is beyond counting.
>
> Jeez, and it hurt enough for you to count.
>
No, just that its that sodding rare I'd remember it...
date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:43:33 +0100
author: novice
|
Re: "But I was indicating!"
novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:43:33 +0100 the
perfect time to write:
>Squashme wrote:
>> On 22 Aug, 21:01, novice wrote:
>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:49:45 +0100 the
>>>> perfect time to write:
>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 16:35, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 15:52,Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 13:15, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It was also rotten anticipation on the part of the cyclist. Why, when
>>>>>>>>> he saw her signalling, did he not simply slow down fractionally? What
>>>>>>>>> was to be gained by all that pissy self-righteous tooting and
>>>>>>>>> shouting. Yes, people do occasionally do things suboptimally - so
>>>>>>>>> what? We're all human, and little bit of give and take goes a long
>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>> Yes, it goes a long way towards the motorist not even noticing her own
>>>>>>>> stupidity. Why was she turning from the middle of the road, across the
>>>>>>>> nearside lane?
>>>>>>> Because there was a slow moving vehicle in the nearside lane, and
>>>>>>> faster moving vehicles are allowed to pas slower moving vehicles.
>>>>>> They are not obliged to, are they? Especially if they are immediately
>>>>>> going to turn left? Or is it some Freudian thing?
>>>>>>> If the cyclist hadn't done his nut as she passed - so that she slowed
>>>>>>> down to see what the matter was - she'd have been able to make the
>>>>>>> left turn well in front of him, from the nearside lane.
>>>>>> She created the problem. Knowing that she wanted to turn left, she
>>>>>> should have stayed behind the bike in the nearside lane, until the
>>>>>> cyclist had passed the turning. Then she could have turned safely from
>>>>>> the nearside lane. All that she needed to do was anticipate. Just
>>>>>> needed a bit of "give and take" on her part.
>>>>> You can be sanctimonious and flat, or whole and avoid the faster
>>>>> traffic. Make your selection... NOW.
>>>> But in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, etc*, cycles ARE the faster
>>>> traffic, so you'd better get those damned cages out of the way before
>>>> we all get mountain bikes and start riding over them.
>>>> *Just about any town during the crush hours.
>>> I've probably been overtaken by a cyclist five times or less in my life.
>>> The number of cyclists I've passed is beyond counting.
>>
>> Jeez, and it hurt enough for you to count.
>>
>No, just that its that sodding rare I'd remember it...
<ctrl-k> <enter>
date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:33:13 +0100
author: Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
|
Re: "But I was indicating!"
Phil W Lee wrote:
> novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:43:33 +0100 the
> perfect time to write:
>
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug, 21:01, novice wrote:
>>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>>> novice considered Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:49:45 +0100 the
>>>>> perfect time to write:
>>>>>> Squashmewrote:
>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 16:35, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 15:52,Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22 Aug, 13:15, The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It was also rotten anticipation on the part of the cyclist. Why, when
>>>>>>>>>> he saw her signalling, did he not simply slow down fractionally? What
>>>>>>>>>> was to be gained by all that pissy self-righteous tooting and
>>>>>>>>>> shouting. Yes, people do occasionally do things suboptimally - so
>>>>>>>>>> what? We're all human, and little bit of give and take goes a long
>>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it goes a long way towards the motorist not even noticing her own
>>>>>>>>> stupidity. Why was she turning from the middle of the road, across the
>>>>>>>>> nearside lane?
>>>>>>>> Because there was a slow moving vehicle in the nearside lane, and
>>>>>>>> faster moving vehicles are allowed to pas slower moving vehicles.
>>>>>>> They are not obliged to, are they? Especially if they are immediately
>>>>>>> going to turn left? Or is it some Freudian thing?
>>>>>>>> If the cyclist hadn't done his nut as she passed - so that she slowed
>>>>>>>> down to see what the matter was - she'd have been able to make the
>>>>>>>> left turn well in front of him, from the nearside lane.
>>>>>>> She created the problem. Knowing that she wanted to turn left, she
>>>>>>> should have stayed behind the bike in the nearside lane, until the
>>>>>>> cyclist had passed the turning. Then she could have turned safely from
>>>>>>> the nearside lane. All that she needed to do was anticipate. Just
>>>>>>> needed a bit of "give and take" on her part.
>>>>>> You can be sanctimonious and flat, or whole and avoid the faster
>>>>>> traffic. Make your selection... NOW.
>>>>> But in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, etc*, cycles ARE the faster
>>>>> traffic, so you'd better get those damned cages out of the way before
>>>>> we all get mountain bikes and start riding over them.
>>>>> *Just about any town during the crush hours.
>>>> I've probably been overtaken by a cyclist five times or less in my life.
>>>> The number of cyclists I've passed is beyond counting.
>>> Jeez, and it hurt enough for you to count.
>>>
>> No, just that its that sodding rare I'd remember it...
>
>
> <ctrl-k> <enter>
<ctrl-dickhead alert> <yep, found one>
date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:15:06 +0100
author: still a novice
|
|
|
