So much safer for cyclists to be allowed to go through red!

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Lifes too short to argue with prejudiced idiots.

Especially if your life is likely to be shortened by moronic colour blind cyclists, who think that running over 5 year old children crossing with a green man is fair game.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Especially if your life is likely to be shortened by moronic colour blind cyclists, who think that running over 5 year old children crossing with a green man is fair game.

Yes indeed. highly likely........

frisbeej

Altarf wrote: »

Especially if your life is likely to be shortened by moronic colour blind cyclists, who think that running over 5 year old children crossing with a green man is fair game.

You do realise you are more likely to be killed putting on a pair of trousers?

Norman_Castle

Norman_Castle

Altarf wrote: »

Especially if your life is likely to be shortened by moronic colour blind cyclists, who think that running over 5 year old children crossing with a green man is fair game.

So the theoretical children are now 5 year old children. What about 5 year old orphans to add to the drama.. What if these children are heading to Halfords to buy a bike. An early cull may be an advantage

esuhl

Ha ha -- protected from harm by a metal cage, Altarf and the rest of the recklessly innumerate and spatially-unaware (as well as colour-blind) motorists who think that attacking cyclists is fair game, don't even recognise their own inferiority complex. Why else would a rabid motorist in a big hard cage be so concerned with cycling?! It's not like cyclists can tame your kamikaze urges to break the law as often as possible.

The situation keeps repeating as more cycling threads appear, yet Altarf seems powerless to stop himself. And the more he works himself up into a tantrum, inevitably, the more reckless and dangerous he'll be on the roads. It's almost like Altarf has become the ignorant, hateful irritant that he has invented as a label for others.

Psychologically, it's all quite amusing, but that hides the tragedy that compels Altarf et al to be obsessed with something that he'll never be able to change. What a waste of his time!

Altarf

Norman_Castle wrote: »

So the theoretical children are now 5 year old children. What about 5 year old orphans to add to the drama.. What if these children are heading to Halfords to buy a bike. An early cull may be an advantage

So how old does the child have to be for you to determine that they are an acceptable target when cycling through red lights, and that any injuries or death that result from your stupidity are their fault?

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

So how old does the child have to be for you to determine that they are an acceptable target when cycling through red lights, and that any injuries or death that result from your stupidity are their fault?

More loaded questions. :T

Norman_Castle

Altarf wrote: »

So how old does the child have to be for you to determine that they are an acceptable target when cycling through red lights, and that any injuries or death that result from your stupidity are their fault?

I don't cycle through red lights. How much more of your dreary vitriol will threads on cycling be burdened with.

Tilt

Altarf wrote: »

Especially if your life is likely to be shortened by moronic colour blind cyclists, who think that running over 5 year old children crossing with a green man is fair game.

Not just children...

https://youtu.be/L95IR9ZvPDA