SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

. The penalty afterwards might be different.

Nailed it.

The penalty is based on severity of offence. And it, basically, goes like this:

Any offence committed in motorised vehicles >>>> (all other offences)


Cars/vans/lorries are lethal. Bikes aren't. Get over it.

 

[caLLous]

By that logic a lorry should be penalised more heavily than a car for jumping a red then, if we're working it out on the amount of damage that they can do.

You get penalised more heavily for doing 90 in a 30 than for doing 40 in a 30 so it's not a great example as jumping a red either happened or it didn't, there's no inbetween.

 

[old.user4556]

The view from my bedroom window whilst wild camping at the weekend:

 

[Bodhi]

Only saw 1 cyclist on the way into work this morning - who promptly went through a red light and nearly got flattened by a lorry going through on green. But of course, this never happens...

 

[Bodhi]

The view from my bedroom window whilst wild camping at the weekend:

View attachment 34493

Wow, we really do have a beautiful country once you make it past the M8 Corridor. Whereabouts is that?

 

[Edmond]

What are you waiting for then? Yesterday, you said tomorrow, so just do it!

I don't care either way, I was just making an observation

 

[Moriath]

The view from my bedroom window whilst wild camping at the weekend:

View attachment 34493

Nice but not enough to give up room service and a proper toilet

 

[old.user4556]

Wow, we really do have a beautiful country once you make it past the M8 Corridor. Whereabouts is that?

Glencoe, view is of Creise and Buachaille Etive Mor from Stob Beinn a'Chrulaiste.

 

[Gwadien]

So basically Scouse wants our legal system to be like the stock market?

'oh this type of death is popular this month, we must give out bigger sentences for this offence!

 

[Moriath]

So basically Scouse wants our legal system to be like the stock market?

'oh this type of death is popular this month, we must give out bigger sentences for this offence!

Seems so.

 

[caLLous]

As long as cyclists get carte blanche to ignore laws because they're only little and they can't hurt anybody.

 

[Tom]

Actually I'd prefer it if we implemented presumed liability, like just about every other country in the EU.

 

[Job]

The view from my bedroom window whilst wild camping at the weekend:

View attachment 34493

Needs a body part for scale...maybe some tent pegs, looks a bit googled.

 

[Bodhi]

Actually I'd prefer it if we implemented presumed liability, like just about every other country in the EU.

I'll assume that's the "It's never the cyclist's fault" rule? Which I can't see ever being abused in the UK. Oh no.

 

[Raven]

So basically Scouse wants our legal system to be like the stock market?

'oh this type of death is popular this month, we must give out bigger sentences for this offence!

He wants to pick and choose which laws are applicable to him.

Perhaps if we encouraged more cyclists to jump red lights it might get more of them off the road.

 

[Tom]

Blame ≠ liability

 

[Moriath]

Why not? If you do something that negatively effects someone else you should be liable to right that wrong.

 

[gohan]

Are you seriously lambasting scouse for saying that a more severe breaking of rules deserves a more severe punishment? Have you ever seen the legal system in action? By your logic manslaughter and murder should carry the exact sa me sentence as they are the same law being broken....... I.e. someone be dead!

For example, hitting someone is assult (cyclist) hitting someone with a bat or knife is gbh or assist with intent or assist with a deadly weapon (car, van, lorry) both are wrong but the consequences change the degree of wrongness

 

[Scouse]

By that logic a lorry should be penalised more heavily than a car for jumping a red then, if we're working it out on the amount of damage that they can do.

You get penalised more heavily for doing 90 in a 30 than for doing 40 in a 30 so it's not a great example as jumping a red either happened or it didn't, there's no inbetween.

I didn't choose the red light example. I personally don't give a fuck about red lights and cyclists who jump them - it's a victimless crime. Much like anything involving cycles. Which is why they don't have to have insurance, don't have to pay pollution tax, don't ever get pulled over and fined by the pigs (especially in the West Midlands) for anything. Because when they fuck up, only they get hurt, not other people.

And as I said: "Any offence committed in motorised vehicles >>>> (all other offences)" is the definition. If you want to be silly and split it up further then knock yourself out - but it doesn't reflect reality, unlike that.

And yep. You do get penalised more heavily doing 90. It's a worse infringement. Exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing

So basically Scouse wants ...

Fuck all to do with what I want Gwad. I just told it like it actually is.

Whiners gonna whine tho...

 

[Gwadien]

I think the actual points being argued are completely different.

Noone said anything about killing but the point is you get coppered if you jump a red light as a non-cyclist where as Scouse is saying rightly so due to how dangerous it is, however noone is actually mentioning death.

 

[Bodhi]

Strange as people don't see this blatant disregard for the rules of the road by certain members of the lycra mafia as doing plenty to foster the "Them and Us" feeling that exists between motorists and cyclists. Because of course, cyclists are perfect in every way.

 

[Bodhi]

Anyway fuck cycling off for a game of soldiers, much better to just drive to work and spend the time you saved on the golf course.

Hackers, rejoice: Playing golf increases lifespan by five years, research shows - Golf Digest

That will do me.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

I think I know what I'm talking about.

No, you don't.

We've ridden the path alongside the coastal road several times this year. There's a nice new pub, The Sparrowhawk, at the end by the bypass. It's fine, never fell off once, didn't need too stop. Had I needed to stop that's fine, I have brakes (and a helmet).
The alternative is to ride on the road with cars, lorries and buses going past at 60mph. I don't consider that safe at all. Regardless of "who should be where" I don't think putting myself or Mrs Yuck in harms way is particularly clever. But then we don't wear lycra.

 

[leggy]

The alternative is to ride on the road with cars, lorries and buses going past at 60mph. I don't consider that safe at all. Regardless of "who should be where" I don't think putting myself or Mrs Yuck in harms way is particularly clever. But then we don't wear lycra.

Indeed. Look after you and your own because no cunt else will.

Definititions and pieces of paper don't keep you alive. Unless it's a fucking epic paper sword with the strength of Obsidian. Then that's ok.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

In other news we are getting a tattoo each. Our first so many researches have occured. Using a place in Manchester with a very good rep and an artist who's work we both like. Should be getting them done in next couple of weeks, can't deny I'm a little apprehensive about the pain part

 

[old.user4556]

No, you don't.

We've ridden the path alongside the coastal road several times this year. There's a nice new pub, The Sparrowhawk, at the end by the bypass. It's fine, never fell off once, didn't need too stop. Had I needed to stop that's fine, I have brakes (and a helmet).
The alternative is to ride on the road with cars, lorries and buses going past at 60mph. I don't consider that safe at all. Regardless of "who should be where" I don't think putting myself or Mrs Yuck in harms way is particularly clever. But then we don't wear lycra.

I've had this argument on here before and I was discussing this with my mate on the way back down the road from the Highlands who is indeed a keen cyclist. He stays off dangerous, blind 60 mph roads (lots of them here) because they're just too dangerous. The traffic is too busy, too many tour buses swing onto the opposite side of the road, too many blind dips / summits on steep sections of road where cyclists can and do go far too slow. Yeah yeah, I get all the arguments, but it's unrealistic to expect every other piece of traffic to do 10mph just in case.

 

[Moriath]

In other news we are getting a tattoo each. Our first so many researches have occured. Using a place in Manchester with a very good rep and an artist who's work we both like. Should be getting them done in next couple of weeks, can't deny I'm a little apprehensive about the pain part

Pics when done

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Pics when done

Will do.

 

[Scouse]

Them and Us

Nobody at any point has said cyclists are perfect. I explicitly condemned the guy in the vid that kicked this all off.

However the "Them and us" is simply down to jealousy that car users can't do what bikes can. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you ride bikes, you soon change your opinions on the subject. Must be something to do with walking a mile in another man's shoes or something...

 

[Gwadien]

Nobody at any point has said cyclists are perfect. I explicitly condemned the guy in the vid that kicked this all off.

However the "Them and us" is simply down to jealousy that car users can't do what bikes can. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you ride bikes, you soon change your opinions on the subject. Must be something to do with walking a mile in another man's shoes or something...

As someone who doesn't drive... Nope.

Cyclists annoy me too, I've nearly been hit a few times due to cyclists jumping reds (mainly in Nottingham, interestingly, Leicesters canal system doubles up as an awesome cycle path, you can get all around the city on it!)

You really can tell the difference between commuter cyclists, and cyclists who also pretty much live it.