Cyclist v Motorist that's actually worth watching

ChumLee

Johno100 wrote: »

I'll see what the MSE populous have to say, two grown men having a road rage argument against Andrew Holland dragging a 3 year old toddler along the street.



Of course you will find more examples than me Craig, most of the cyclists involved in these sort of incidents can't be identified.

Or is that because he's so ignorant with regards to cyclists wrong doings?

custardy

ChumLee wrote: »

Because you fail to see an wrong doing by any cyclist.

So what if the cyclist had stabbed him, you would claim it's ok because the car passed too close?

Doesn't that just come under public order?
Stabbed with a weapon they are carrying,big trouble.
Feeling in imminent danger and using the force/tools available you feel necessary to protect yourself? different matter.
Being aggressive and threatening violence on camera would lend itself to a pre-emptive protective strike.

custardy

ChumLee wrote: »

Or is that because he's so ignorant with regards to cyclists wrong doings?

You really do like calling me ignorant. Can you not disagree with someone without insults?
Would it help if I moved to the left?

ChumLee

custardy wrote: »

Doesn't that just come under public order?
Stabbed with a weapon they are carrying,big trouble.
Feeling in imminent danger and using the force/tools available you feel necessary to protect yourself? different matter.
Being aggressive and threatening violence on camera would lend itself to a pre-emptive protective strike.

Yet more denial.

You really can see the wood for the trees can you?

I'm glad to see you find the cyclist behaviour ok and would shake the hand of any man who called your mother a c@€t.

custardy

ChumLee wrote: »

Yet more denial.

You really can see the wood for the trees can you?

I'm glad to see you find the cyclist behaviour ok and would shake the hand of any man who called your mother a c@€t.

Well she has been dead over 15 years.
So do you feel thats an appropriate thing to say to me?

ChumLee

custardy wrote: »

Well she has been dead over 15 years.
So do you feel thats an appropriate thing to say to me?

But you feel it's appropriate behaviour from a cyclist.

custardy

ChumLee wrote: »

Only if I say I'm a cyclist.

Well you seem determined to instigate something.
So that's not the the type you seem to fit into.
Isn't it time you called me or one of my post ignorant again?
It would ave been much simpler had you just agreed to disagree.
However I can see that you and John are two peas in a pod.

Mercdriver

ChumLee wrote: »

And you base another ignorant comment on what?

You are so biased in favour of the cyclist, you can't see beyond what you want to see. You mentioned fail to stop, where is the evidence of a collision?
While you're doing your research have a read of the public order act and going by the evidence on that clip tell us why you think the police got it so wrong.

And using the terms 'lycra clad idiots' make you balanced and unbiased, please get real!

Ashingtonian

I haven't read most of this but the bottom line in the UK is the motorist is always wrong and the cyclist is always innocent.

Mercdriver

Ashingtonian wrote: »

I haven't read most of this but the bottom line in the UK is the motorist is always wrong and the cyclist is always innocent.

Can you back that up with actual facts and figures - and no newspaper reports don't count.