"Peter Jason" <pj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g00mqb$2jdd$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:68i3uuF2slidsU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Peter Jason" <pj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:g004d8$2dsd$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "The Raven" <swilson150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:48237d72$0$30462$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "Lu R" <whome@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:4822ff8a$0$30466$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "F Murtz" <haggisz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4822f5d3$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> If an idiot in a car changes lane in front of bicycles and then
>>>>>> suddenly brakes are the bicycles that run into him liable for the
>>>>>> damage to his car? Usually the vehicle in the rear is at fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the car was in a bicycle lane I think the drivers ****ed
>>>>> dont you?
>>>> Cars are allowed in bicycle lanes under certain conditions. If
bicycle
>>>> lanes are solely for the use of bicycle riders they should be paying
>>>> registration fees etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> They should be paying rego & 3rd party fees anyway, assuming they will
>>> be injured on the roads. Why should these candy-coloured pests be
any
>>> different from other road users?
>>
>> **They are no different to other road users. Drivers should avoid
hitting
>> them.
>>
>>>
>>> Were all the 20 cyclists in the bike lane? Not bloody likely. Indeed
>>> they often ride two abreast, overflowing the bike lane, to talk to
each
>>> other.
>>
>> **Unlikely, in this case. The bike lane is generously large.
>>
>>>
>>> The incident probably went like this:
>>>
>>> 1/ Some of the 20 cyclists overflowed the bike lane, so causing
>>> obstruction to motorists.
>>
>> **Wrong. Cyclists are entitled to use the road, UNLESS they are
>> specifically disallowed from doing so (on a motorway, for instance).
YOU
>> are precisely what is wrong with many road users. Cyclists are road
users
>> and need to be treated as such.
>>
>>>
>>> 2/ A motorist became enraged, as well he might.
>>
>> **And that motorist should be stripped of his or her right to drive.
>>
>>>
>>> 3/ Motorist taught them a lesson.
>>>
>>> Way to go!!
>>
>> ******wit. You are demented.
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
>
>
> You're one of them aren't you?
**What? A car driver? Yes, I am. A cyclist? Yes.
Are you old
> enough to drive and have you ever encountered any of these pests?
**Other car drivers? Yes. Many should not be on the road. You appear to be
one who does not understand the road rules.
>
> I have never seen a bike lane wide enough to allow 2 bike pests to ride
> side-by-side; surely the pedals and other bits would become entangled.
**The road under discussion has a wide bicycle lane. In any case, that is
irrelevant. A cyclist is entitled to use the lane.
>
> I collided with one of the idiots once and it demolished my LHS mirror
> which ended up with all the spokes and junk with the bike-person
> appropriately ensconced in the gutter. It gave me great pleasure,
though
> I had to buy a new mirror. I should have sued the prick! They should
all
> be confined to the footpaths!
**You are a ****wit. Learn to drive, or get off the road.
Trevor Wilson
|
