Go see:
That's a lie, but at least you've left the quote link so people can easily click the arrow and see that I was only attempting to answer your "why".
Well, you would need to take that up with its author, but my guess would be that @Metal8 didn't mean that we should all go around making brum brum noises, but have a bit of respect and good manners when it comes to things like stopping at crossings. Like I say, this is only my opinion, and I may be wrong.
Well, in future you should perhaps post less ambiguously, but I am prepared to take you at your word, without feeling the need to call you a liar.
In your own time
I can understand and explain them; he's a "me, me, me, I'm first, I'm more important than everybody else", turd. It's got nothing to do with saving energy or trying to stay upright due to being unstable. I'll say it again, he's a turd, it's easy to see.
If so, then this and similar posts seem like trolling:
Which is why I'm not continuing to reply to the demands for explanations.
How does me saying a) he should have stopped, and, b) he's a selfish turd, make me a troll? Go and look troll up in the dictionary. And the reason that you aren't replying to my points (not demands), is that you have no answer for them. Its obvious that his reasons for not stopping had nothing to do with energy conservation or balance.
That doesn't. It's the playing the innocent "I don't see why he did that" when you have your own explanation (that he's a turd) and then constantly arguing with any alternative explanations which was trolling. Pointing out such things may be impolite, but then I already know I'm a blunt midlander.
Of course they did. He made a calculation that he could pass behind the pedestrian at the speed and trajectory he did, thus maintaining balance and momentum and getting to his destination quicker. This may well have been unconscious and manifested itself as the thought "I reckon I can make that gap", but the calculation was made. What mucked it up was the pedestrian deciding to step into his path, which the cyclist hadn't anticipated, or had dismissed as being so unlikely as to be worth the risk. If he had taken this possibility into account and left a larger gap, this would have brought him into conflict with the pedestrian crossing from the left.
So you think the cyclist was correct in what he did?
No. He should have given the pedestrian more room, which means he would have been in conflict with the pedestrian crossing from the left, which means he should have stopped.
So why all the brolacs before defending him, the cyclist was being an utter & complete cockwomble & should have stopped or at the very least slowed dramatically.
It was said tongue-in-cheek, so maybe I should have made that clearer. Apologies for that then.
It's not pointing out things that make you impolite, it's name-calling on a not-an-awful-lot-of-evidence. Its got nothing to do with being blunt. Check out my other posts on here and tell me if they tie in with my being a trolling liar. Go on, I dare you.
There's about as much evidence of that as there is for "Sod all those pedestrians, I'm going to squeeze through if I can and if I hit one then so be it".
