Tut Tut...

Tony B said:

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:>

how come they are not all dead???

not seen a sequel, maybe they all died doing the sequel, of course it
will be everyone else's fault and not theirs...

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:29:17 -0000, "The other view point, there is one

you know... said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:49:10 -0700, "The other view point, there is one

you know... said:

It's kinda like watching a Chinese sweatshop worker making cheap
T-shirts.

This is the dark underbelly nobody likes to think about when they phone
for a bike courier because their precious item /has/ to be on the other
side of town pronto.

It was an organised speed event...they did for fun and through
choice...

I'm aware of that. But many of the participants had shoulder bags
typical of bike couriers. I suspect that's their day job when not
engaged in these sorts of mad max races.

icogs said:

Was that a police car coming out from under Centrepoint (1'27"😉?
Should have nicked them.

How!?

Tom Crispin said:

icogs said:

Was that a police car coming out from under Centrepoint (1'27"😉?
Should have nicked them.

How!?

What I intended to express was that "It was a shame that Plod was not
in a better position to apprehend them." I guess I did that rather
badly ;-(

icogs said:

Tom Crispin said:

icogs said:

Was that a police car coming out from under Centrepoint (1'27"😉?
Should have nicked them.

How!?

What I intended to express was that "It was a shame that Plod was not
in a better position to apprehend them." I guess I did that rather
badly ;-(

When I watched saw the clip I was hoping that the police car would
give chase.

Phil Armstrong said:

Quoted message said:

how come they are not all dead???

Because cycling isn't very dangerous, even when you're as cavalier as
this!

Your having a laugh there, surely...

Tony B

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Phil Armstrong said:

Quoted message said:

how come they are not all dead???

Because cycling isn't very dangerous, even when you're as cavalier as
this!

Your having a laugh there, surely...

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B

says... Phil Armstrong said:

Quoted message said:

> how come they are not all dead???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because cycling isn't very dangerous, even when you're as cavalier as
this!

Quoted message said:

Your having a laugh there, surely...

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

Think of the anger they are giving other road users, just appearing
and riding as if road safety was not an issue for them.
If they did collide with another person, vehicle etc, all the
inconvenience etc just so they could be what...cyclist?

As my original subject line, Tut, tut..

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:46:53 -0000, "The other view point, there is one

you know... said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B

says... Phil Armstrong said:

>> how come they are not all dead???

Quoted message said:

> Because cycling isn't very dangerous, even when you're as cavalier as
> this!

Quoted message said:

Your having a laugh there, surely...

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

Think of the anger they are giving other road users, just appearing
and riding as if road safety was not an issue for them.
If they did collide with another person, vehicle etc, all the
inconvenience etc just so they could be what...cyclist?

Any anger a motorist feels is entirely self-generated. If he gets angry
at cyclists, he'll get angry at taxi drivers, peds, and anything else
impeding his progress. He can't control the traffic, but he can control
his reaction to it. If he's failing to do that effectively, he's
failing to drive safely. He's also headed for an early grave through
too much stress.

Quoted message said:

As my original subject line, Tut, tut..

Sanctimonious cow.

Rob Morley said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. There is zero justification
for riding like that - it is selfish, inconsiderate, illegal and
dangerous. It is also very exciting to watch, but that does not stop it
being all the above. It is antisocial! To propose that it's not to bad
because they'll only hurt themselves, or maybe break a collar bone, is
plain bonkers. If it were me, laid up with a broken leg after some daft
twunt had ridden into me like that, I'd be unable to console myself with
your words, as I sat at home on zero pay waiting for the break to heal.

T

Tony B said:

Rob Morley said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar
bone if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a
car and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

He's not trying to defend anything. He said "it's not dangerous", not
"it's not dangerous, therefore it's OK".

[snipped]

-dan

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony B

(') said:

Rob Morley said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

I don't think he's trying to defend it, at all.

Quoted message said:

There is zero justification
for riding like that - it is selfish, inconsiderate, illegal

Yes, certainly, all of those things - which are good and sufficient reasons
for opposing it...

Quoted message said:

and dangerous.

.... but I think he's right about this one. It isn't nearly as dangerous as
it looks.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

Simon Brooke said:

... but I think he's right about this one. It isn't nearly as dangerous as
it looks.

Have to agree, the idiots in this video look to be relatively
undangerous, compared to someone driving a Nitroglycerine truck, cycling
like that in typical London traffic flow. But view some of his other
videos ( from America) the roads are wider the traffic seems faster
moving and it is BLEEP BLEEP dangerous.

http://www.digave.com/videos/index.htm

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

No I'm not.

Marc Brett said:

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:46:53 -0000, "The other view point, there is one

you know... said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...> Phil Armstrong wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> how come they are not all dead???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Because cycling isn't very dangerous, even when you're as cavalier as
> > this!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Your having a laugh there, surely...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

Quoted message said:

Think of the anger they are giving other road users, just appearing
and riding as if road safety was not an issue for them.
If they did collide with another person, vehicle etc, all the
inconvenience etc just so they could be what...cyclist?

Any anger a motorist feels is entirely self-generated. If he gets angry
at cyclists, he'll get angry at taxi drivers, peds, and anything else
impeding his progress. He can't control the traffic, but he can control
his reaction to it. If he's failing to do that effectively, he's
failing to drive safely. He's also headed for an early grave through
too much stress.

Quoted message said:

As my original subject line, Tut, tut..

Sanctimonious cow.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bollocks, many cases there when people and cars had to react because
the tossers sorry cyclist, were flying with two fingers at everyone

Tony B said:

Rob Morley said:

The bikes are the fastest things on the road, the riders are all
concentrating and pumped up on adrenaline - I doubt anyone would get
anything worse than bruises, road rash or a broken wrist or collar bone
if they did screw up. I suppose one of them could ricochet off a car
and headbutt a lamp post, but he'd have to be unlucky.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Nobody's defending it. I merely suggested that it wasn't as
dangerous as some of the posters to the thread appeared to think, and
the previous poster posted exactly the kind of reasons I would have
given (if I could have been bothered...)

These guys have been doing this kind of thing for ages. Is it
anti-social? Yup. Dangerous? Not very.

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, TheMgt
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

I just don't understand why motorists feel obliged to let them through
when they're blatantly running red lights

Would you really hit someone, injuring them and probably causing several
hundred quids worth of damage to your car, when you could just brake
and swear a lot instead?

I wouldn't hit them if I could help it

And neither would almost anyone else. They don't really have time to
think about it, they just reflexively brake and steer. It's not until
the bike's past that they've time to get angry and shouty.

TheMgt wrote on 30/06/2007 20:04 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, TheMgt
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley wrote:

> I just don't understand why motorists feel obliged to let them through
> when they're blatantly running red lights
Would you really hit someone, injuring them and probably causing several
hundred quids worth of damage to your car, when you could just brake
and swear a lot instead?

I wouldn't hit them if I could help it

And neither would almost anyone else. They don't really have time to
think about it, they just reflexively brake and steer. It's not until
the bike's past that they've time to get angry and shouty.

Even the ones here claiming they would are I would bet all mouth and no
trousers if it came to it.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Quoted message said:

No I'm not.

OK, fair doos I stand corrected; it does sound apologetic though. I do
think it's dangerous though - there's maybe 70-90kg moving quickly
through peds crossing the road. Which would be like being hit with a
large hammer? How could that not be dangerous?

Tony B

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony B
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Quoted message said:

No I'm not.

OK, fair doos I stand corrected; it does sound apologetic though. I do
think it's dangerous though - there's maybe 70-90kg moving quickly
through peds crossing the road. Which would be like being hit with a
large hammer? How could that not be dangerous?

That sort of cycling isn't particularly dangerous - I didn't say
anything about how dangerous it is to be a pedestrian. :-)