Lowest of the low

[Shut Up Legs]

I bet the comments on the article are a delight!

I did my best . Well, at least until I passed the 10-comment mark, and got a bunch of emails from the paper telling me the other comments after that had been rejected. Did my best to rebut some of the anti-cyclist rubbish.

 

[AndyRM]

I did my best . Well, at least until I passed the 10-comment mark, and got a bunch of emails from the paper telling me the other comments after that had been rejected. Did my best to rebut some of the anti-cyclist rubbish.

You're on a hiding to nothing on the DM website.

 

[Hip Priest]

Yes, there are cyclists who ride like fools, but we need to stop pretending that they pose anything more than a negligible danger to anyone but themselves. If the Daily Mail is genuinely concerned about road safety, it should campaign against the thousands of motorists who drive whilst fiddling with smartphones & tablets.

 

[Cold]

The DM would change it's tune if one of the Kardashians went on a bike.

 

[MattE72]

The DM would change it's tune if one of the Kardashians went on a bike.

I thought they were bikes??

 

[ComedyPilot]

I am in no way condoning any of the behaviour of the cyclists in the video.

In fact I can't be arsed to watch really.

I don't do what they do - end of.

But I do find the 890+ people that have commented on the Daily Shite web page a bit hypocritical as only just over 30 of them feel the same RAGE to comment on the following news item where a CAR DRIVER ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY INJURED A CYCLIST:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hit-wrong-road-speeding-70mph-30mph-zone.html

 

[BrynCP]

Yes there's no law about riding two abreast around a corner but why would you want to? On a 60mph road I'd rather have common sense (even if the driver behind doesnt) and ride single file just incase the driver didn't slow down and didn't have time to see me. The primary position thing doesn't even come in here - if there's two cyclists abreast and the one on the inside has to move over because of let's say a pothole, then the outside cyclist has to move further over than a normal primary position.

My point was that the commenter seems to suggest had he/she hit the cyclist they'd be at fault, not the driver. It could equally have been a horse, tractor or other slow moving, but wider presence around that corner, and they'd be to blame too?

I am not for one moment suggesting you should, and I take great care and time to choose the right moment to even overtake a cyclist (when I am cycling), but I didn't like the attitude of the commenter suggesting they'd be blameless.

 

[Gixxerman]

I made a few posts / replies on there in a foolhardy attempt to try and educate some of "them". It was like trying to push smoke up a cats arse with a knitting needle - completely futile.