"The cyclist was causing an obstruction"

[Grendel]

You are correct, neither does it mention he was not. Which as many understood was the point of my story, too many cyclist jumping to unfounded conclusions.

I'd like to think I haven't, but the original article appeared to.

The problem with many newspapers is they print what they are told, without researching if it is factually correct.

 

[the_mikey]

Regardless of provision of a cycle lane or not, unless otherwise specified by a sign, the road is available to all traffic.

 

[screenman]

Regardless of provision of a cycle lane or not, unless otherwise specified by a sign, the road is available to all traffic.

He was cycling down the middle of the road wobbling about and blocking traffic as he went, the motorist were concerned for his safety, nothing else.

 

[Grendel]

No.

Perhaps you should.

 

[glenn forger]

Perhaps you should.

can't. I'm banned.

 

[screenman]

How do you know this?

Because I cannot find my half bottle of whisky and I know I had it when I come out of the pub.


Still the same as yesterday.

 

[screenman]

Silly arse

Yep!

 

[Grendel]

can't. I'm banned.

Where do you live? North Korea?

 

[glenn forger]

Oh, I thought you meant post comments beneath the story. I could write I suppose unless I forget or can't be bothered. It's totally rubbish reporting.