60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Only recently I contributed to a thread (on the motoring forum) about car lights. I took the opportunity to criticise drivers who don't know how/when to use their dipped head lights as that particular morning it had been persistently raining. As I noticed about 1 in 4 drivers who hadn't got any lights on at all, I suggested that DRLs were invented because of these incompetent drivers.

Happy now?

Got a link?

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Probably my biggest question.
why do these threads exist against cyclists (in multiples) yet not on the motoring sections on motorists behaviours?

I'm sure if an equivalent thread was started on the motoring board about a group of motorists suing a council for damage to their vehicles from say speed humps and supporting their cause, it would only take a few posts before there would be comments such as "you should watch where you are going" and "they should slow down or find another route". No different really.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

I'm sure if an equivalent thread was started on the motoring board about a group of motorists suing a council for damage to their vehicles from say speed humps and supporting their cause, it would only take a few posts before there would be comments such as "you should watch where you are going" and "they should slow down or find another route". No different really.

Like this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5108150

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Like this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5108150

No not quite, because as has been pointed out previously on this thread a pothole is a fault in the road surface not a design feature such as a speed hump or a tram track.

But anyway, that thread supports what I said, post #12

Heaven forbid anybody might actually look where they're going?!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67077608&postcount=12

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Got a link?

Sure;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5106487

Post #35

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Sure;

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5106487

Post #35

As I expected. That thread isn't set out to vilify motorists.
Anything more appropriate?

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

No not quite, because as has been pointed out previously on this thread a pothole is a fault in the road surface not a design feature such as a speed hump or a tram track.

But anyway, that thread supports what I said, post #12



http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67077608&postcount=12

A dozen is a 'few'?
Also if you read the thread,how many posts follow your mantra in the whole thread? It would seem the minority to me.

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

As I expected. That thread isn't set out to vilify motorists.
Anything more appropriate?

So my post #35 dosn't 'balance the books' for you then? Maybe I need a hammer and chisel then. On second thoughts, nah. I'm perfectly comfortable and satisfied that I have made my point even though you won't agree.

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

A dozen is a 'few'?
Also if you read the thread,how many posts follow your mantra in the whole thread? It would seem the minority to me.

Well take post #4 if you are that fussy.

MrCautious wrote: »

I don't like this kind of thing. You are moving into the no win no fee kind of territory. The compensation culture we are becoming s not pleasant.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Well take post #4 if you are that fussy.

You would agree the majority however,don't agree with you?