Gaz545's stalker has done another "video"
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Oh, the video is boring, but the poster, and the stupidity of his "I hate cyclists" is defo not. That's livened up my afternoon nicely, especially now it turns out that the cyclist is doing nothing wrong and the youtuber was speeding.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
He's responses are pretty boring though.
barongreenback
Über Member
- Location
- Warwickshire
He's put that video up to get a reaction and that's exactly what he's got. One nil to the troll.
rockyraccoon
Veteran
nice one!
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
What you need is a flag that says "I'm allowed to ride here by LAW" incase he see's you, hahaha!
Havent reported him myself. Looking on Googlemaps there are speed cams in the area, chances are he might have been caught out. I doubt it would hurt if someone raised it officially or sent a message to crimestoppers at a push.
Unfortunately it appears he is actually correct about the cycle path:
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=928
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=928
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
The bit he replied to for me I found on googlestreetview that there are entry points at the roundabouts on both ends. Even toucan crossings.
As a caution my own Southampton council site doesnt list two or three of the local offroad facilities and atleast one on road last time I checked. And they'd been there for a good year or two.
Just had a chat with Nottingham Council's cycling officer. The cycle signs are just for the crossings on to the cycle lane going south at the roundabout where the sign is shown, not east where the footage is taken. The section of road in the video is managed by the highway agency and they have apparently resisted attempts from Nottingham Council to have a cycle lane added to that stretch.
So, I am afraid, the troll is in fact correct.
However he is still very obviously speeding which I'm sure anyone involved in enforcement of the law would happily state is a far more dangerous and reprehensible activity than riding a bicycle on the pavement.
But I would leave our troll alone now.
So, I am afraid, the troll is in fact correct.
However he is still very obviously speeding which I'm sure anyone involved in enforcement of the law would happily state is a far more dangerous and reprehensible activity than riding a bicycle on the pavement.
But I would leave our troll alone now.
[QUOTE 1275294"]
How can he be a troll if he is in fact correct? [/quote]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you really do not know what you are doing, and so for the benefit of yourself I'm going to offer you the following bit of information so that perhaps you won't be doomed to continuously repeat the same mistakes:
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....Troll_(Internet
You might want to look back at your own posting style after reading that.
How can he be a troll if he is in fact correct? [/quote]
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you really do not know what you are doing, and so for the benefit of yourself I'm going to offer you the following bit of information so that perhaps you won't be doomed to continuously repeat the same mistakes:
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....Troll_(Internet
You might want to look back at your own posting style after reading that.
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
[QUOTE 1275294"]
How can he be a troll if he is in fact correct? He said at he start of the video that cyclists annoy him because they partake in the illegal activity of riding on the pavement.
It would have done you good and most others on this thread to come down off of your high horses and actually research whether it is a shared cycle path before commenting.
''But I would leave our troll alone now'' translates to:
I have not got the bollox to admit that I and most other people who posted on the guys YouTube channel that we were in fact all wrong.
Now instead of one stupid cyclist breaking the law, we now have many more stupid cyclists going on about something which they are in fact incorrect about.
Congrats.
[/quote]
As Jetzon said..
plus I will add that said youtuber has sent abusive comments to many of us on there. Typically he'll come out with some nonsense (Chew is the same, as is this Yamahait fella) that we're breaking the law by riding too far out, has even made up laws and on one occassion said a cyclist deserved to get run over "for being in the way".
He's a troll.
I'm happy to admit I'm now wrong as per Jetzons comment. However given the guys crap in the past I'm more inclined not to leave an apology on there as he's brought it on himself.
I'm against pavement cycling as everyone knows, but the cyclist in question was clearly no threat or hinderance.
I'll leave it at that.
How can he be a troll if he is in fact correct? He said at he start of the video that cyclists annoy him because they partake in the illegal activity of riding on the pavement.
It would have done you good and most others on this thread to come down off of your high horses and actually research whether it is a shared cycle path before commenting.
''But I would leave our troll alone now'' translates to:
I have not got the bollox to admit that I and most other people who posted on the guys YouTube channel that we were in fact all wrong.
Now instead of one stupid cyclist breaking the law, we now have many more stupid cyclists going on about something which they are in fact incorrect about.
Congrats.
[/quote]
As Jetzon said..
plus I will add that said youtuber has sent abusive comments to many of us on there. Typically he'll come out with some nonsense (Chew is the same, as is this Yamahait fella) that we're breaking the law by riding too far out, has even made up laws and on one occassion said a cyclist deserved to get run over "for being in the way".
He's a troll.
I'm happy to admit I'm now wrong as per Jetzons comment. However given the guys crap in the past I'm more inclined not to leave an apology on there as he's brought it on himself.
I'm against pavement cycling as everyone knows, but the cyclist in question was clearly no threat or hinderance.
I'll leave it at that.
In the end its a dilemma having to share a road with this guy or retreating to the pavement. There is a difference between those the ride the pavement to be annoying or just thoughtlessly and those that do it for safety reasons. Both are breaking the law but should they prosecuted with equal zeal? Police guidelines are clear on this. But not every policeman reads ...
