On May 9, 10:03 am, "Peter Jason" <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees
> anyway, assuming they will be injured on the
> roads.
1/ because your rego pays for what, exactly?
2/ You're assuming that they're not insured.,. which is highly
unlikely if they were professional cyclists
> Why should these candy-coloured
> pests be any different from other road users?
- Exactly.. do you swerve in front of other road users and put their
lives at risk? no
> Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane?
- probably not. Have you tried riding in a 'bike lane' recently?
Usually full of parked cars.
> Not bloody likely. Indeed they often ride
> two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to
> talk to each other.
Which they are legally entitled to do (2 abreast in a lane). You seem
to be ignorant of a fair number of road rules.. did you get your
license from a wheeties packet, too?
> The incident probably went like this:
>
> 1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the
> bike lane, so causing obstruction to
> motorists.
diddums. Must have held him up for at least 30 seconds before he came
up against the next Sydney traffic jam.
> 2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he
> might.
because he's a psychopath?
> 3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
>
> Way to go!!
I'll add you to the list of psychopaths
> Incidentally, why are these mooning rainbow
> freaks not allowed on freeways?
Err... the same reasons that horses are carts aren't? Do you plan on
swerving in front of the next horse you see on the road, too?
(should not feed trolls..)
duncan
|
