Own up! Who was it?

[potsy]

Some people need to get a life. So a cyclist, a complete stranger, jumped a few red lights. Yes they broke the law but nothing life changing happened. They didn't kill anyone, they didn't cause an accident. Then some sad cycling vigilante decided to put it on YouTube. I really can't fecking stand people like that. It's like they've got a "look at me" complex. Woot woo, you have a camera. I get people who have a camera in case they need to have one as evidence of a genuine bad driving incident or as evidence in an accident. But those that just use it to upload menial shite or think that just because they have a camera they can deliberately provoke other road users need that camera shoving up their posterior.

Call off the witch hunt, I think we've found him

 

[Plax]

Call off the witch hunt, I think we've found him

Doubtful. Last time I looked I had a vagina and not a penis.

 

[mick1836]

Illegal, certainly, and not something I do, but he put neither himself nor any other person in danger.

So its okay then?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

So its okay then?

No, not ok but I get put in far greater danger by cars and trucks every time I go out than this guy puts anybody in. And yet we tolerate this danger. Not much cause then, in my view, to get all high and mighty about him. I ride legally but not because I'm under any illusion that it's safer.

 

[lukasran]

the only reckless bit is the camera man sprinting like a man possesed to get more footage of the poor RLJer.

 

[jefmcg]

So its okay then?

I think there is a huge divide between "completely ok" and "deserving of pillory"

The sanctimonious public shaming that social media (including forums) encourages is fairly terrifying.

 

[KneesUp]

So its okay then?

Are you seriously asking if an action with no negative consequences for anyone is okay?

 

[jefmcg]

So its okay then?

Are you seriously asking if an action with no negative consequences for anyone is okay?

It's rhetorical device. The answer to the question is clearly meant to be "no"

 

[KneesUp]

It's rhetorical device. The answer to the question is clearly meant to be "no"

I got that - but why? No-one was hurt. No-one was inconvenienced. The rider got home quicker than he would have (albeit at the same speed as the rider putting in more effort to keep up) and the world carried on turning. How can that not be ok?

 

[jefmcg]

I got that - but why? No-one was hurt. No-one was inconvenienced. The rider got home quicker than he would have (albeit at the same speed as the rider putting in more effort to keep up) and the world carried on turning. How can that not be ok?

Sorry. I thought you were being thick, it turns out it was me being thick

I agree, no harm done. So I will step back and let @mick1836 defend himself

 

[YahudaMoon]

Whats with the double pink road lines in that vid, is it where the queen/s can only park?

 

[jefmcg]

Whats with the double pink road lines in that vid, is it where the queen/s can only park?

That would be for Lady Penelope, I'd guess

 

[markharry66]

Who cares zzzzzz.

 

[TheDoctor]

Double reds are like a more restrictive double yellow.
No loading / unloading, no getting in or out of vehicles, no stopping at all.

 

[Tynan]

Doubtful. Last time I looked I had a vagina and not a penis.

Clitoris surely?

For the biological pedants among us