Starting to develop a dislike for A.M. joggers

[tadpole]

It's tragic that posters can't comprehend what the OP is saying and that there so blinkered by there own ego. Oh well! that's the Internet for you

We more than comprehend; it's just that I feel that the OP is at fault due to bad cycling practice/bad attitude... so no ego is involved.
He came one here looking for Bro-support, when he didn’t get it so started using Bro-law and Bro-arguments, bro-logic. When that didn’t work he then started, along with others, to insult people. Still no ego involved. As for blinkered; it doesn’t apply. Just because your arguments do not sway people to your side of the argument, it doesn’t mean they are blinkered, it just means your arguments are not persuasive enough, or people can see that they are plainly wrong.
OP Now is the time to examine your motives and look to your riding habits and apply the views of the majority to real life events and I’m sure you’ll see that maybe your riding style may sometimes be the cause of a large proportion of the conflicts you suffer on the “shared Path”

 

[redcard]

Lets put it another way.

'I was driving my car which has poor lights on a dark foggy morning down a country road and hit a stupid pedestrian who had no Hi-Viz and no reflectives. He deserved to die!'

On my side now??????

It's bizarre you equate manslaughter with hurting someone's little toe.

It's a political argument rather than one of common-sense.

Start blaming the pedestrian, then we lose the moral high ground when bollocking the motorist.

Its the same with hi-viz and the helmet debates. If we admit they're useful then we're admitting cycling is a dangerous activity.

 

[byegad]

It's bizarre you equate manslaughter with hurting someone's little toe.

It's a political argument rather than one of common-sense.

Start blaming the pedestrian, then we lose the moral high ground when bollocking the motorist.

Its the same with hi-viz and the helmet debates. If we admit they're useful then we're admitting cycling is a dangerous activity.

Irony mode was engaged when I wrote that. You do realise this?

 

[redcard]

Irony mode was engaged when I wrote that. You do realise this?

It was a bad analogy rather than irony.

 

[fossyant]

And as far as B.C. law and cyclists, well my wife practices B.C. law "Department of Justice" so I have a very good understanding of whats what. I made a crap comment to see just how far some people would take it, and to those few that just HAD to search and see what the law was, I say get a life or get out more and ride..you obviously need it.


To those that posted with some form of respect and dignity, weather positive or negative I say thanks. It's not what you say, but how you say it.

Well well, well. Pot kettle black eh.

Behave on this thread all of you, otherwise it will get locked. Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.

 

[Peter Armstrong]

Someone Close this bloody thread!

 

[J.Primus]

Well well, well. Pot kettle black eh.

Behave on this thread all of you, otherwise it will get locked. Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.

What's CAD if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Dayvo]

What's CAD if you don't mind my asking?

A sub forum in community.

Current Affairs and Debates.

 

[4F]

Commuting sub forum is getting as bad as CAD.

How very dare you Commuting is much worse

 

[Dayvo]

Someone Close this bloody thread!

If reading this upsets you, then you don't have to read it.

Apart from one or two petty insults, there is 'reasonable' debate from both sides.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No, not at all, it was a statement aimed in general.

Cool. My bads.

The different between a jogger who is basically invisible and most of those objects is that they're just things - not living beings.

OK. So focus on the living beings. How come I've never hit or killed any of them?

I berate ninjas because it gives those who adhere to the law a bad name, just as RLJers do and pavement hoggers do.

I used to think along those lines. I now reject the idea that ninja's rlj-ers and pavement bunnies give me a bad name. It's illogical. They are not me. I am not them. To suggest a common bond, and from it, guilt-by-association, because we use the same mode of transport I feel is foolish. I drive a car. I walk about a lot. I jog/run (and at night I wear reflectives) I ride a bike. So what am I?

 

[Dayvo]

I drive a car. I walk about a lot. I jog/run (and at night I wear reflectives) I ride a bike. So what am I?

A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.

I wouldn't wear them if I was running somewhere away from motor traffic or on a shared use path though. I don't wear them at night to walk exactly the same streets that I run on.

 

[400bhp]

A sensible jogger/runner, which the OP feels there are too few of.

This is the answer.

The end.

 

[green1]

No, not at all, it was a statement aimed in general.

The different between a jogger who is basically invisible and most of those objects is that they're just things - not living beings.

They may just be objects but they will still give you a world of hurt when you ride in to them because your going too fast/have insufficent lighting for the situation.