Greatbridge Road in Romsey is closed after a cyclist hit by van

Cyclist injured after being hit by van

Cyclist injured after being hit by van

First published in News
Last updated

A HAMPSHIRE road has been closed after a cyclist was hit by a van.

Greatbridge Road in Romsey is closed in both directions after the incident at around 3.16pm.

Police say a woman in her mid-30s was involved in a collision with a white Mercedes Sprinter.

She was thrown off her bike and suffered suspected neck and back injuries.

The road was closed at around 3.30pm by police for ambulance crews to treat the woman at the scene.

Comments (149)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:17pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Mugsey2 says...

Im sure the usual people on here will soon work out whose fault it was even though they were 10 miles away at the time, hope she recovers OK
Im sure the usual people on here will soon work out whose fault it was even though they were 10 miles away at the time, hope she recovers OK Mugsey2
  • Score: 23

4:34pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Mugsey2 wrote:
Im sure the usual people on here will soon work out whose fault it was even though they were 10 miles away at the time, hope she recovers OK
Yes certain people here judge the situation with no evidence
[quote][p][bold]Mugsey2[/bold] wrote: Im sure the usual people on here will soon work out whose fault it was even though they were 10 miles away at the time, hope she recovers OK[/p][/quote]Yes certain people here judge the situation with no evidence Mary80
  • Score: 4

4:43pm Tue 18 Mar 14

charrlee says...

They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter. charrlee
  • Score: -9

4:46pm Tue 18 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

Hope she makes a speedy recovery.
Hope she makes a speedy recovery. S!monOn
  • Score: 22

5:09pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

charrlee wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger

rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww

nfaderrrrrrrr !
brilliant - and that Geoff69 guy.

In all seriousness hope she is ok.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww nfaderrrrrrrr ![/p][/quote]brilliant - and that Geoff69 guy. In all seriousness hope she is ok. Kingontail
  • Score: -2

5:25pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -8

5:32pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Strike One!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Strike One! Torchie1
  • Score: 5

5:48pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 4

6:23pm Tue 18 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street bigfella777
  • Score: 6

6:33pm Tue 18 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.) charrlee
  • Score: 7

6:43pm Tue 18 Mar 14

charrlee says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street
That was in Kathleen Road, I think, Bigfella. The police must have come across his 600+ videos showing him swearing at motorists and then harassing them. You never see the alleged offence by the motorists, only Ginger's public order offences. I can only assume the police regard him as some sort of "harmless loony".
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street[/p][/quote]That was in Kathleen Road, I think, Bigfella. The police must have come across his 600+ videos showing him swearing at motorists and then harassing them. You never see the alleged offence by the motorists, only Ginger's public order offences. I can only assume the police regard him as some sort of "harmless loony". charrlee
  • Score: 6

6:56pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
No, things to do, places to be, people to see.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]No, things to do, places to be, people to see. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -18

6:57pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street
He was the one that wanted to argue the toss.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street[/p][/quote]He was the one that wanted to argue the toss. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -17

6:58pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -9

7:27pm Tue 18 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure.

And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing.

Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ;
1 You showing a sign of humility - just once.
2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion.
3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers?[/p][/quote]Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure. And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing. Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ; 1 You showing a sign of humility - just once. 2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion. 3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical. charrlee
  • Score: 13

7:39pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure.

And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing.

Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ;
1 You showing a sign of humility - just once.
2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion.
3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.
He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway.
Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers?[/p][/quote]Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure. And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing. Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ; 1 You showing a sign of humility - just once. 2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion. 3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.[/p][/quote]He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway. Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -14

7:59pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure.

And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing.

Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ;
1 You showing a sign of humility - just once.
2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion.
3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.
He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway.
Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.
Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers?[/p][/quote]Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure. And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing. Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ; 1 You showing a sign of humility - just once. 2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion. 3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.[/p][/quote]He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway. Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.[/p][/quote]Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 6

8:04pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure.

And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing.

Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ;
1 You showing a sign of humility - just once.
2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion.
3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.
He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway.
Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.
Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous?
Am I supposed to know if it happened on a junction or something when they haven't told us or given a map view of the location?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers?[/p][/quote]Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure. And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing. Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ; 1 You showing a sign of humility - just once. 2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion. 3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.[/p][/quote]He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway. Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.[/p][/quote]Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous?[/p][/quote]Am I supposed to know if it happened on a junction or something when they haven't told us or given a map view of the location? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -14

8:18pm Tue 18 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

charrlee wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street
That was in Kathleen Road, I think, Bigfella. The police must have come across his 600+ videos showing him swearing at motorists and then harassing them. You never see the alleged offence by the motorists, only Ginger's public order offences. I can only assume the police regard him as some sort of "harmless loony".
Harmless? more like gormless . If everyone freaked out about every little thing that happens in EVERYONE S daily lives not just his, can you imagine the chaos lol. It's a good job we have such good ginger knights of the road to educate us all.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Like arguing with OAP's about their driving standards in the street[/p][/quote]That was in Kathleen Road, I think, Bigfella. The police must have come across his 600+ videos showing him swearing at motorists and then harassing them. You never see the alleged offence by the motorists, only Ginger's public order offences. I can only assume the police regard him as some sort of "harmless loony".[/p][/quote]Harmless? more like gormless . If everyone freaked out about every little thing that happens in EVERYONE S daily lives not just his, can you imagine the chaos lol. It's a good job we have such good ginger knights of the road to educate us all. bigfella777
  • Score: 5

9:01pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Oh my goodness says...

Greatbridge Road in Romsey is closed in both directions after the incident at around 3.16pm.

Very precise for around 3.16pm!
Greatbridge Road in Romsey is closed in both directions after the incident at around 3.16pm. Very precise for around 3.16pm! Oh my goodness
  • Score: 3

9:58pm Tue 18 Mar 14

freefinker says...

charrlee wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger

rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww

nfaderrrrrrrr !
.. baiting yet again?
You use someone's misfortune to continue your personal haranguing of other posters.
Déjà vu me finks, BtK
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww nfaderrrrrrrr ![/p][/quote].. baiting yet again? You use someone's misfortune to continue your personal haranguing of other posters. Déjà vu me finks, BtK freefinker
  • Score: 4

10:06pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

freefinker wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger


rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww


nfaderrrrrrrr !
.. baiting yet again?
You use someone's misfortune to continue your personal haranguing of other posters.
Déjà vu me finks, BtK
Then they get those who agree with them and can't see sense to downvote the sensible comments.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Ladies and Gentlemen ! Please welcome.......Ginger rrrrrrr Cyclist ! Assisted by the one and only......Dowwwwwwww nfaderrrrrrrr ![/p][/quote].. baiting yet again? You use someone's misfortune to continue your personal haranguing of other posters. Déjà vu me finks, BtK[/p][/quote]Then they get those who agree with them and can't see sense to downvote the sensible comments. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -11

10:14pm Tue 18 Mar 14

geoff51 says...

You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured.
You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts.
You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured. You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts. geoff51
  • Score: -1

10:21pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

geoff51 wrote:
You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured.
You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts.
Take another look at who was using someone elses misfortune to bait people and you shall see it was "charrlee", also, Nazi's kill people they don't like the look of, cyclists don't.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured. You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts.[/p][/quote]Take another look at who was using someone elses misfortune to bait people and you shall see it was "charrlee", also, Nazi's kill people they don't like the look of, cyclists don't. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -11

11:42pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

geoff51 wrote:
You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured.
You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts.
I think you need to start at the beginning.

Then again Jeff when people get to your age things do begin to slip a bit, so I suppose we should cut you some slack for failing to read.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: You Cycling Nazis cant help yourself can you? you take someones misfortune to shout your case, con you not just for once get off your high horses and actually show a little sympathy for the person injured. You are really beneath contempt and give the cycling brigade bad press by your actions and should realise that not everyone hangs on your words of so called wisdom and inwardly laughs at your sad efforts.[/p][/quote]I think you need to start at the beginning. Then again Jeff when people get to your age things do begin to slip a bit, so I suppose we should cut you some slack for failing to read. Drhysted
  • Score: 1

12:26am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -11

1:26am Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under. charrlee
  • Score: 3

1:44am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -8

6:21am Wed 19 Mar 14

townieboy says...

BORING. Hope shes ok though.
BORING. Hope shes ok though. townieboy
  • Score: 2

6:52am Wed 19 Mar 14

Forest Resident says...

Oh look, another cycling related story immediately taken wildly off topic by bigoted anti cycling idiots. I hope the cyclist involved is able to recover from what sounds like a truly horrendous experience,
Oh look, another cycling related story immediately taken wildly off topic by bigoted anti cycling idiots. I hope the cyclist involved is able to recover from what sounds like a truly horrendous experience, Forest Resident
  • Score: 11

8:51am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.
I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.
Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)
Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we?

( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)
Pedal power rangers?
Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure.

And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing.

Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ;
1 You showing a sign of humility - just once.
2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion.
3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.
He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway.
Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.
Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous?
Am I supposed to know if it happened on a junction or something when they haven't told us or given a map view of the location?
It doesn't usually stop you. You seem singularly able to determine fault in an accident, based on nothing more than the vehicles involved.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: They're late ! Probably going over their lines on Twitter.[/p][/quote]I do have more important things to do, unlike you and the likes of Geoffry.[/p][/quote]Yeah,like checking your new comment emails. ;0)[/p][/quote]Lol ! Well I've got this one covered, and I hope the rest of you guys have. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls of wisdom from the Pedal Power Rangers, would we? ( In case the relevant parties try to play the "insensitive to victim" card, there is no way that anyone here does not feel deep sympathy for the lady, and hope she recovers quickly.)[/p][/quote]Pedal power rangers?[/p][/quote]Yes, Pedal Power Rangers ! Go figure. And the Kathleen Road incident : after you'd yelled at him for overtaking you without permission, you chased him home and started yelling at him outside his house. Your own video shows you initiating and manipulating the whole thing. Gingercyclist, I have a simple agenda with regards to your posts. I am looking for ; 1 You showing a sign of humility - just once. 2 You showing the tiniest interest in someone else's opinion. 3 You asking a question that isn't rhetorical.[/p][/quote]He had permission to overtake but he shouldn't have done it where he did so as I was trying to keep safe by staying away from parked cars to avoid the possibility of being doored, which is something that you'd get taught in cycle training, I didn't chase him home at all, I was going to the end of kathleen road anyway and he just happened to live along there, I didn't even have my voice raised when I stopped to ask about his driving and I didn't initiate OR manipulate anything but you probably know all that anyway. Besides, let's not detract from the fact that a human being has been possibly injured in a serious way, by another human being in a 3.5 Tonne(or more) steel box.[/p][/quote]Last paragraph a trifle disingenuous?[/p][/quote]Am I supposed to know if it happened on a junction or something when they haven't told us or given a map view of the location?[/p][/quote]It doesn't usually stop you. You seem singularly able to determine fault in an accident, based on nothing more than the vehicles involved. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 5

8:53am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

9:47am Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Good morning, Gilbert.

Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching.

Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne !
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Good morning, Gilbert. Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching. Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne ! charrlee
  • Score: 0

9:50am Wed 19 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Something we agree on!

"Oooooo you got downvoted! OOOOOO!" - I'm also an adult!
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Something we agree on! "Oooooo you got downvoted! OOOOOO!" - I'm also an adult! camerajuan
  • Score: 2

10:31am Wed 19 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

10:59am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Good morning, Gilbert.

Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching.

Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne !
You will need Google Chrome.

Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'.

Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter.

Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like.

Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops"

Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Good morning, Gilbert. Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching. Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne ![/p][/quote]You will need Google Chrome. Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'. Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter. Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like. Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops" Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 84

11:08am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Should anyone think of this as "hacking", it's really nothing of the sort. It's a matter of basic Internet security to examine what HTTP requests a website is actually making from your browser. As a side effect, you occasionally see some interesting quirks of a particular system.
Should anyone think of this as "hacking", it's really nothing of the sort. It's a matter of basic Internet security to examine what HTTP requests a website is actually making from your browser. As a side effect, you occasionally see some interesting quirks of a particular system. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 4

11:14am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

11:16am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -6

11:25am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

11:31am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:32am Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Good morning, Gilbert.

Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching.

Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne !
You will need Google Chrome.

Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'.

Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter.

Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like.

Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops"

Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.
Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done.

However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up.

But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Good morning, Gilbert. Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching. Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne ![/p][/quote]You will need Google Chrome. Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'. Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter. Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like. Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops" Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.[/p][/quote]Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done. However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up. But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective. charrlee
  • Score: -1

11:35am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Good morning, Gilbert.

Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching.

Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne !
You will need Google Chrome.

Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'.

Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter.

Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like.

Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops"

Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.
Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done.

However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up.

But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective.
You mean comments from yourself and the 3 or 4 other moronic anti-cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Good morning, Gilbert. Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching. Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne ![/p][/quote]You will need Google Chrome. Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'. Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter. Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like. Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops" Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.[/p][/quote]Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done. However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up. But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective.[/p][/quote]You mean comments from yourself and the 3 or 4 other moronic anti-cyclists? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

11:40am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

11:41am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

11:43am Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ? charrlee
  • Score: 1

11:50am Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.
Good morning, Gilbert.

Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching.

Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne !
You will need Google Chrome.

Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'.

Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter.

Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like.

Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops"

Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.
Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done.

However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up.

But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective.
I'm not so arrogant as to assume I'm the only person who's figured this out, and I have also not manipulated any votes in this story, other than the obvious votes on my own post. I wouldn't be surprised if they're genuine, nor would I be surprised to learn someone else is faking them.

Either way, they're just meaningless. People are using them to try and "punish" other users.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]I shall shortly reveal the secret of manipulating the votes, if you like. It's incredibly simple, trivial, even. One doesn't even need an account to do it, or any skill. That way, nobody can ever trust the votes again, and they'll be treated as the irrelevance they actually are.[/p][/quote]Good morning, Gilbert. Come on then, enlighten us about the votes. We're all watching. Some months ago, a certain forum user was able to manipulate Jayne388's votes from 2 to -800 in less than a couple of minutes ! It was pretty obvious that 800 people had not suddenly all turned up in the same place at the same time to vote down Jayne ![/p][/quote]You will need Google Chrome. Go to the story whose comments you wish to manipulate. Wait until it is completely loaded, to make things easier for yourself. Right-click on it and select "inspect element". You will see a window pop up at the bottom of the browser. Click on the tab in that window marked 'network'. You will see a load of text that represent individual requests from your browser to the web server. Click on the 'stop sign' button (a circle with a line through it) to clear them. Now vote up or down on your target comment. You will see the request for that vote appear. Right click on that and select 'copy as cURL'. Assuming you're on Windows, open a command prompt window (cmd) and simply right-click on it and select 'paste'. Press enter. Bingo, you just voted. You can do this as many times as you like. Your homework is to figure out how to repeat this process over and over again. Hint: google "batch file loops" Have fun, kids, and remember, these imaginary internet points are completely and utterly meaningless.[/p][/quote]Most interesting thing you've posted, Gilbert. I doubt I'll be bothered to try it, but the important thing is that we know it CAN be done. However, because you may have a lot of minus votes does not necessarily mean the score is being manipulated. I think Gcyclists minus votes are genuine because the comments back them up. But as you say, this information puts the votes thing in perspective.[/p][/quote]I'm not so arrogant as to assume I'm the only person who's figured this out, and I have also not manipulated any votes in this story, other than the obvious votes on my own post. I wouldn't be surprised if they're genuine, nor would I be surprised to learn someone else is faking them. Either way, they're just meaningless. People are using them to try and "punish" other users. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 2

11:55am Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

12:00pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

12:03pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

12:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

12:06pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:16pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=wy_MZW42
2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5
Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R
E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=Lra3A1in
gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

12:34pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=wy_MZW42

2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5

Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R

E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=Lra3A1in

gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

12:51pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.


com/watch?v=wy_MZW42


2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.


com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5


Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.


com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R


E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.


com/watch?v=Lra3A1in


gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

12:53pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.



com/watch?v=wy_MZW42



2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.



com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5



Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.



com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R



E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.



com/watch?v=Lra3A1in



gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

1:00pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.




com/watch?v=wy_MZW42




2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.




com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5




Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.




com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R




E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.




com/watch?v=Lra3A1in




gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.[/p][/quote]Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

1:06pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

1:28pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.





com/watch?v=wy_MZW42





2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.





com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5





Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.





com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R





E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.





com/watch?v=Lra3A1in





gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.
But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.[/p][/quote]Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.[/p][/quote]But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
You clearly don't know anything about me other than what I've said and my name that you found through twitter.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]You clearly don't know anything about me other than what I've said and my name that you found through twitter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.






com/watch?v=wy_MZW42






2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.






com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5






Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.






com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R






E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.






com/watch?v=Lra3A1in






gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.
But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.
Yes they do.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.[/p][/quote]Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.[/p][/quote]But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Yes they do. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
That does make a lot of sense Charrlee, sheds light and explains a lot of things.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]That does make a lot of sense Charrlee, sheds light and explains a lot of things. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

1:57pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.







com/watch?v=wy_MZW42







2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.







com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5







Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.







com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R







E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.







com/watch?v=Lra3A1in







gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.
But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.
Yes they do.
They don't. I explained exactly why about five posts earlier. If you choose to ignore that and carry on insisting otherwise, I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you. But I am going to assume you are an utter fool who is more concerned with WHO is right than WHAT is right, and not waste any further effort on anything other than ridiculing you. Attempts to reason with you are pointless.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.[/p][/quote]Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.[/p][/quote]But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Yes they do.[/p][/quote]They don't. I explained exactly why about five posts earlier. If you choose to ignore that and carry on insisting otherwise, I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you. But I am going to assume you are an utter fool who is more concerned with WHO is right than WHAT is right, and not waste any further effort on anything other than ridiculing you. Attempts to reason with you are pointless. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :) gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ?

Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.
I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.
Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence.

You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance.

And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification.

Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble.

You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.
Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?
Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?
No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?
No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.
Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.
No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.
Jumping the red lights-
https://www.youtube.








com/watch?v=wy_MZW42








2FQ

Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road-
https://www.youtube.








com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5








Y9E

Failure to give way on a roundabout-
https://www.youtube.








com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R








E5A

Using the phone while driving-
https://www.youtube.








com/watch?v=Lra3A1in








gYI

All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.
In order:

The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out.

There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place.

The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place.

The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place.

None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.
First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.
Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.
Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.
But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.
Yes they do.
They don't. I explained exactly why about five posts earlier. If you choose to ignore that and carry on insisting otherwise, I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you. But I am going to assume you are an utter fool who is more concerned with WHO is right than WHAT is right, and not waste any further effort on anything other than ridiculing you. Attempts to reason with you are pointless.
And I've aready said before that I only report the especially bad stuff so does it really matter?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: You don't seem to mention reporting all these incidents to the police and what they and the CPS thought of your evidence. What does "libelious" mean ? Did you throw in an extra " i " for your monstrous ego ? Your videos show nothing except you swearing in public ! And that is a public order offence. I hope you have plenty of money to pay the court costs because, remembering your videos do not show the actual alleged offence, when those 600 motorists all deny your allegations and launch counter claims, you are going to go right under.[/p][/quote]I don't report all of them, only the especially bad ones, otherwise I just add the Hant's RPU twitter tag to the title, "libelous"(yeah, I spelt it wrong, so sue me and everyone else that makes a spelling mistake) means maliciously or damagingly defamatory comments, in other words, lying, no, I make sure that it's clear in my videos what the offence is, as for the "public order offence", it's unlike anyone will be charged with such a thing these days, hundreds of public order cases in recent years have been thrown out due to the now widespread use of profanities, though I'm still sure to hold my tongue around children, whether others will take the same consideration, I don't know, so please, get off your imensely high horse and sit down, get some sleep, or continue lying while I'm asleep myself, I don't care, you're just a silly little keyboard warrior that has no idea of what they're talking about.[/p][/quote]Are you a bit slow on the uptake? Do you understand the concept of an overview? This, and other forum "discussions" that result in you getting a richly-deserved panning, is all about your reams and reams of tedious pro-cycling propaganda, and your disturbingly absurd preoccupation with filming drivers and alleging they have committed an offence. You come here every time there is something remotely connected with cycling, and badger the forum users with minutely-detailed, irrelevant speculation concerning events about which you cannot possibly know anything. Your purpose appears to be to portray the cyclist as a victim in society, and to propose transportation changes that would prove to be impractical, often impossible, for the majority of people. When they point this out to you, you brush it off with unparalleled dismissive arrogance. And you want it all for free, without any form of accountability ! You don't want a national competence test, you don't want to pay for a licence or insurance, and you don't want to carry any externally-visible form of personal identification. Back to your videos. The viewer NEVER SEES the alleged offence. It is just you SAYING one is taking place. As you know, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. How can you, for example, allege that someone has cut in on you without an aerial view? All your camera viewing angles are either forward or rear view. You could have deliberately or accidentally moved towards the motorist's path, making things look that way. Michael, a drunk defence lawyer listening to the cricket through headphones would be able to take your evidence apart with no trouble. You are an irresponsible, time-wasting charlatan. A self-appointed judge and jury, you place yourself on the edge of society, making pronouncements according to your rules. As far as the majority of forum users are concerned, you can take your 600 videos, your arrogant opinions, and your huge collection of minus votes, and shove it.[/p][/quote]Using the phone while driving is an offence, jumping red lights is an offence, failure to give way is an offence, ignoring road signs that say no entry is an offence, driving the wrong way through guildhall square is an offencecausing alarm/distress to another road user is an offence under sectio 59 of the police reform act 2003, speeding is an offence, overtaking when there are double white lines(unless the vehicle you overtake is going less than 10mph) is an offence, using your vehicle as a weapon to injure or intimidate is an offence, parking where you shouldn't is an offence, not wearing seat belts is an offence, pulling into a bike box at a red light is an offence(same as jumping the red), driving with no lights is an offence, entering/parking in mandatory cycle lanes is an offence, parking on the pavement is an offence, driving on the pavement is an offence, driving with a vehicle that wouldn't pass an MOT is an offence(that includes faulty lights), driving across a level crossing after the red lights start flashing is an offence, parking on cycle paths and in bus stops is an offence, stopping on a yellow box junction is an offence, shall I keep going or is your tiny little brain hurting?[/p][/quote]Stop deliberately misunderstanding what is being said, and stop throwing in misinformation. No one has said that any of the behaviours you have mentioned is not an offence. What I have said is that your videos DO NOT SHOW, BEYOND DOUBT, THE OFFENCES ACTUALLY BEING COMMITTED. The videos show you SAYING they have been committed. Even you can see the difference, can't you ?[/p][/quote]No, the videos DEFFINITELY show the offence, without a doubt being committed most of the time, if not then I make sure to put in the description that it may not be clear in the video, you DO read the descriptions don't you? Or do you not bother like every other stupid bugger that doesn't read the description that holds information that they may want?[/p][/quote]No video definitely shows an offence taking place. There is always, always doubt. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Oh but mine usually DO show the offence taking place,without doubt.[/p][/quote]No they don't. Seems you don't understand how evidence works. Give me an example, and I'll highlight the ambiguity to you.[/p][/quote]Jumping the red lights- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=wy_MZW42 2FQ Driving the wrong wa down a one-way road- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vO3fn8C5 Y9E Failure to give way on a roundabout- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=vMhoHo2R E5A Using the phone while driving- https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=Lra3A1in gYI All 3 CLEARLY show the offence being committed.[/p][/quote]In order: The road looks slippery, the driver may not have been able to stop in time. It may have caused an accident. Like it or not, that is an accepted mitigation, and your video does not absolutely rule that out. There is a sign in your direction of travel indicating it's a one-way street. Your video does not show that there is a sign in the other direction of travel that says no entry. You may argue that there is, and there probably is. But the video does not show it, hence the video does not show beyond doubt that an offence took place. The guy on the roundabout pulled out in plenty of time for you to proceed. You simply decided that he had failed to give way. The video comes nowhere near close enough to showing that an offence took place. The video does not show whether her engine was running. Whether an offence exists or not hinges on that fact. Once again, the video does NOT clearly demonstrate an offence took place. None of your evidence is enough to garner a conviction I'm afraid. Least of all the third one, where I submit you were just determined to be offended.[/p][/quote]First one, the road was dry, no one behind them for miles and the lights were amber long before they got close, second one was guildhall square, you can easily look on google maps to see that there IS a no entry sign at the end where the vehicle entered, third one, I was forced to stop as if I didn't I felt that at my speed I would have gone into the side of them,, I was indicating for my exit before they pulled out and you should ALWAYS give way to the right, also wide angle lens makes things look further away than they are and the fourth one, the engine was running, you would have heard it start up before she pulled away if it wasn't, also the handbrake wasn't applied since the brake lights were lit up.[/p][/quote]Don't get me wrong, apart from the roundabout one, I agree with you that an offence probably took place. Point is, the video does NOT clearly show that. I, a lay person, managed to cast doubt on each and every one. A lawyer would do much better. That's my point.[/p][/quote]Yeah but I don't report those ones, just upload them, so a laywer won't ever see them in court, now if I was hit and/or injured, it would be reported AND I would have free legal help thanks to my British Cycling membership, also, it would be hard to cast doubt on a video if it clearly shows another vehicle hitting me despite it clearly being avoidable.[/p][/quote]But that's all supposition. So far, despite your lofty insistence, these videos do not clearly show an offence being committed.[/p][/quote]Yes they do.[/p][/quote]They don't. I explained exactly why about five posts earlier. If you choose to ignore that and carry on insisting otherwise, I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you. But I am going to assume you are an utter fool who is more concerned with WHO is right than WHAT is right, and not waste any further effort on anything other than ridiculing you. Attempts to reason with you are pointless.[/p][/quote]And I've aready said before that I only report the especially bad stuff so does it really matter? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

2:07pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)
A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)[/p][/quote]A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

2:16pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

2:16pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)
A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy.
Seems spot-on to me. You've got all the signs.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)[/p][/quote]A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy.[/p][/quote]Seems spot-on to me. You've got all the signs. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

2:20pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:22pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it.

He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground.

In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things.

Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing :

As I was coming down the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there,
He wasn't there again today,
I wish that man would go away.
Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)
A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy.
Seems spot-on to me. You've got all the signs.
I may have Asperger's but that doesn't mean I'd drop a friend in it for something stupid.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Gilbert. Like his contemporaries D J Cook and Graham Simmons, Michael Andrews treats this forum like a computer game where he has to defeat the "enemy"(other forum users) with whatever argument he can come up with. It does not matter to him whether his response is wrong, inappropriate, or foolish in the eyes of the rest of the world, if he can tailor it to fit he will use it. He has mentioned on more than one occasion that he is characterised by Asperger's Syndrome. This can be a God-send if you have mathematical or scientific matters to solve, but an absolute hindrance sometimes in social settings. For example, his literal interpretation of everything prevents him from recognising some forms of sarcasm and humour. The fact that he cannot see that his "600 videos" will make people suspicious of his motives, and put him outside of the "regular guy" category. Another example would be, perhaps, in a classroom situation, where the teacher asks, "Who threw the pencil?" An Asperger's would immediately put their hand up and inform the teacher if they knew the answer. They would not necessarily understand the concept of not telling on your classmates. No two AS's are the same, but there is a lot of common ground. In the case of Michael's videos, he believes he has seen an offence committed, he has filmed the event in which the alleged offence was committed, he has informed everyone that the offence has been committed, and he cannot understand why we do not accept what he says without question. He does not understand that we, and the courts, might want more evidence than just his sayso on things. Watch this : Michael, please explain the meaning of this poem, and why people might find it amusing : As I was coming down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there, He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away.[/p][/quote]Good analysis. He and southy are peas in a pod really. As Swift once said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" Unlike you or I, of course, who generally refuse to accept one another's opinion out of sheer spite :)[/p][/quote]A very poor analysis actually and I'm nothing like southy.[/p][/quote]Seems spot-on to me. You've got all the signs.[/p][/quote]I may have Asperger's but that doesn't mean I'd drop a friend in it for something stupid. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

2:25pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

2:27pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

2:31pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:35pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.
So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.[/p][/quote]So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.
So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good.
Then why am I not massively upvoting all my own comments? It would be utterly trivial for me to automatically get 100+ upvotes every time I comment. Why have I not done this? Could it be that I actually don't care?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.[/p][/quote]So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good.[/p][/quote]Then why am I not massively upvoting all my own comments? It would be utterly trivial for me to automatically get 100+ upvotes every time I comment. Why have I not done this? Could it be that I actually don't care? gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

2:45pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.
So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good.
Then why am I not massively upvoting all my own comments? It would be utterly trivial for me to automatically get 100+ upvotes every time I comment. Why have I not done this? Could it be that I actually don't care?
Or you're not THAT stupid.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]Did you not see my post above? Votes are meaningless. Literally, now, given I've openly posted exactly how to manipulate them.[/p][/quote]So? Wouldn't stop it from making you feel better if that's what makes you feel good.[/p][/quote]Then why am I not massively upvoting all my own comments? It would be utterly trivial for me to automatically get 100+ upvotes every time I comment. Why have I not done this? Could it be that I actually don't care?[/p][/quote]Or you're not THAT stupid. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:53pm Wed 19 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
This quotes within quotes is annoying.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]This quotes within quotes is annoying. S!monOn
  • Score: 1

2:58pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

S!monOn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
This quotes within quotes is annoying.
Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]This quotes within quotes is annoying.[/p][/quote]Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like. charrlee
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
This quotes within quotes is annoying.
Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long.
The fact that you just ignore anything anybody says that contradicts anything you've stated as "fact" makes it tedious to follow conversations.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]This quotes within quotes is annoying.[/p][/quote]Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long.[/p][/quote]The fact that you just ignore anything anybody says that contradicts anything you've stated as "fact" makes it tedious to follow conversations. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

3:18pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
- 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ?
I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ?

Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale.

Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.
How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no.
Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.
If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge.
Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything.
I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.
If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.
But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.
Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.
What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?
You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.
My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.
So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?
It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.
Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.
Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?
What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.
But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.
I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.
And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.
Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.
No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.
“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy

Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.
Obviously not.
You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.
Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.
This quotes within quotes is annoying.
Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long.
The fact that you just ignore anything anybody says that contradicts anything you've stated as "fact" makes it tedious to follow conversations.
You just being here makes it tedious.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: - 46 votes, Gingercyclist ! That's MINUS 46 votes ! You getting this as well, freefinker ? I'm not in a position to award all those votes myself, am I ? Baiting, freefinker? You only ever appear to attempt to intimidate me with this Billy The Kid nonsense ! THAT is baiting. Going out on a bike, yelling abuse at innocent motorists and posting 600 videos of it on You Tube - THAT is baiting on a horrendously unprecedented scale. Tonight you have both been OWNED ! Time you both accepted you are wrong and got out of here.[/p][/quote]How is riding a bike to places, in a legal and safe manner, baiting people? I don't ride to cause conflicts, I ride to go places, if you or someone else don't like how I ride, take it up with someone who might actually care and I don't yell abuse at people unless they give me abuse first or they pull really stupid and dangerous moves, such as passing me with only 1.5ft or less, left hooking me, cutting me up, pulling out on me etc, I never yell at innocent motorists, I have PLENTY of evidence of motorists commiting offences like jumping red lights and using the phone while driving or overtaking when it clearly isn't safe to do so, was RJ04CXT innocent when they used their vehicle to threaten and intimidate me before making an ILLEGAL and close overtake on double white lines on a level crossing? Overtaking in such a place is ONLY legal, if the vehicle you're overtaking is doing less than 10mph, I was doing much closer to 20 at the point they overtook me, what about HY59JYG who gave me a close pass at 67mph on a 40mph road? Or even HV62EYB who jumped a red light on the ped/cycle crossing for the path that goes past decathlon? How about W273YFC driving with no lights on? And how about GF02OHB using the phone, illegally, behind the wheel with her baby in the passenger seat next to her? Are they all innocent? no. Did I shout at all of them? No, so I'd like some compensation for your libelious comments please.[/p][/quote]If you spent less time taking car numbers,and more time concentrating on your riding,you might not get so stressed Ginge. Just accept that today's roads aren't a safe place for cycling,any more than they are for horse riding.Its an evolutionary thing,canal boats gave way to steam engines,stringbags to jet fighters.There is a time and place for everything. I'm not against cycling,but fairness has never been a consideration that has ever thwarted the march of progress, ask any wheelwright or blacksmith... if you can find any.[/p][/quote]If people gave me the space and consideration I NEED then I wouldn't get so stressed at times.[/p][/quote]But they don't, and you know they're not going to. After a point, it becomes your own problem for still being stressed about it. As our chum above says, accept it and deal with it.[/p][/quote]Would you accept it if someone kept putting your life in danger in a way that was completely avoidable such as swinging a sledge hammer an inch from your head? No, I doubt it very much, it's failure to give space and consideration that often leads to motorists hitting cyclists and other vulnerable road users.[/p][/quote]Nope. I'd accept instead that I could no longer go near where the sledgehammer was being swung. THAT is the point.[/p][/quote]What if it was somewhere you HAD to go, like I HAVE to ride on the road as my bike is a ROAD vehicle?[/p][/quote]You don't HAVE to. You COULD use other forms of transport, you COULD use other roads than the busy main ones.[/p][/quote]My bike HAS to be used on the road and I DO have to use the main roads, I have no choice about that.[/p][/quote]So you alone, out of everyone on the planet, has absolutely no choice whatsoever about that? What makes you so special?[/p][/quote]It's not just me and besides, even if I was to use more back roads, I would STILL have to use a main road at some point while riding, plus taking such a route would add time to my journey, even oing through Sholing which is a reletively quick and quiet route, I still have to join a main road when I get to the toll bridge.[/p][/quote]Since we're able to walk to those places, it's a given that you can cycle there, taking to the pavements on foot as necessary. As is often the case, that which you claim to be a stone cold immovable fact, proves upon examination to be just a matter of inconvenience. Until you learn to stop talking in absolutes all the time, you're going to keep getting pwned in internet arguments.[/p][/quote]Would you get off and push a motorbike/moped or get out of car and push along a main road?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have? We're talking about cyclists.[/p][/quote]But it has every relevance, you're suggesting that one road user should get off and push their ROAD vehicle along main roads for the convenience of everyone else, so why shouldn't those with a car/motorbike do the same for the convenience of goods traffic, emergency vehicles and public transport? You know, those who drive for a living and not for a 4-5mile drive to work and back.[/p][/quote]I'm saying no such thing. I"m suggesting one road user dismounts for their own safety. You're really just arguing for the sake of it now.[/p][/quote]And it's convenient for others, the ONLY ways to go for the safety of cyclists is either better driver education and tougher enforcement with liability laws similar to those already found in the work place OR a TRULY Dutch style infrastructure, again with those liability laws.[/p][/quote]Nobody cares. You're much like southy: impossible to take seriously because you are unable to see when you've quite clearly been proven wrong.[/p][/quote]No, I can admit when I'm wrong, in this case, I'm not wrong.[/p][/quote]“and has admitting when i am wrong i am one of the only few people on here that will do that” - southy Spelling aside, you're virtually identical.[/p][/quote]Sure, keep telling yourself that.[/p][/quote]I don't have to. I'm able to grasp such things the first time round.[/p][/quote]Obviously not.[/p][/quote]You may downvote this too. I know it makes you feel better.[/p][/quote]Or you can upvote it as that also seems to make YOU feel better.[/p][/quote]This quotes within quotes is annoying.[/p][/quote]Agreed, makes it kind of hard and tedious to follow conversations, it also makes the page stupidly long.[/p][/quote]The fact that you just ignore anything anybody says that contradicts anything you've stated as "fact" makes it tedious to follow conversations.[/p][/quote]You just being here makes it tedious. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

3:19pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives.

Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week.

Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.
I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives. Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week. Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page. charrlee
  • Score: -3

3:31pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

3:34pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that?

They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.
Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that? They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible. charrlee
  • Score: -4

3:37pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that?

They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.
Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that? They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.[/p][/quote]Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

3:48pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
Now that does explain a lot.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]Now that does explain a lot. Drhysted
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that?

They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.
Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to?
I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that? They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.[/p][/quote]Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to?[/p][/quote]I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you. charrlee
  • Score: -3

4:07pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Let me make it clear I have nothing at all against Asperger's people. But I do not feel sorry for them either, because they are not "disabled" or "challenged". It's their monstrous egos and arrogance I find challengING.
Let me make it clear I have nothing at all against Asperger's people. But I do not feel sorry for them either, because they are not "disabled" or "challenged". It's their monstrous egos and arrogance I find challengING. charrlee
  • Score: -2

4:07pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that?

They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.
Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to?
I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you.
Then talk about me in PRIVATE, yeah?
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Just read some of Cook's Twit page. He's talking to someone called Forest Resident. He refers to me as "some recurring b ugger who keeps getting banned and coming back with a new name" ! Why would he think that? They are so arrogant they think we argue with them just for trolling purposes! He and Simmons, like Gingercyclist share very similar characteristics, as if they have all been brainwashed in the same training camp. I just wonder if they are all Aspergers using social media to practice social interaction? It is possible.[/p][/quote]Now why would I need the internet for "social" interactions when I could go and SEE my friends in person if I can and/or want to?[/p][/quote]I wasn't talking TO you, I was talking ABOUT you.[/p][/quote]Then talk about me in PRIVATE, yeah? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

4:11pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Let me make it clear I have nothing at all against Asperger's people. But I do not feel sorry for them either, because they are not "disabled" or "challenged". It's their monstrous egos and arrogance I find challengING.
Only one here with a monstrous ego is YOU.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Let me make it clear I have nothing at all against Asperger's people. But I do not feel sorry for them either, because they are not "disabled" or "challenged". It's their monstrous egos and arrogance I find challengING.[/p][/quote]Only one here with a monstrous ego is YOU. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

4:19pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's.

You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you.
Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's. You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you. charrlee
  • Score: -3

4:29pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's.

You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you.
Proof? What proof have you provided?
Of course you'd be on here with such a huge ego that it can be seen from Pluto.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's. You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you.[/p][/quote]Proof? What proof have you provided? Of course you'd be on here with such a huge ego that it can be seen from Pluto. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

4:49pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's.

You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you.
Proof? What proof have you provided?
Of course you'd be on here with such a huge ego that it can be seen from Pluto.
?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: Everything I have said I have gone to the trouble of backing it up with examples, proof, and personal knowledge. I have had a fair bit of experience working with HAF's. You have just accused me of something, in a fashion typical of yourself, without any backup evidence. If I had a monstrous ego I wouldn't waste it here talking to you.[/p][/quote]Proof? What proof have you provided? Of course you'd be on here with such a huge ego that it can be seen from Pluto.[/p][/quote]? charrlee
  • Score: -1

5:36pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives.

Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week.

Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.
If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter.

It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives. Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week. Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.[/p][/quote]If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter. It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 1

6:07pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?[/p][/quote]I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -1

6:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.
So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?[/p][/quote]I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.[/p][/quote]So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

6:53pm Wed 19 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.
So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?
Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all.

The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?[/p][/quote]I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.[/p][/quote]So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all. The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place. gilbertratchet
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.
So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?
Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all.

The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=6qycF0ra
qpg (not the original video which was of higher quality)
London cyclist got knocked off his bike by a right turning car and then also got ran over by another car pulling out of the same junction, lawyers for both drivers told them to deny fault, one pleaded guilty on seeing the video in court, the other still denied, both were prosecuted very shortly after the footage was viewed in court, video evidence is also a form of "direct evidence" meaning it can stand on it's own and even win a court case.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?[/p][/quote]I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.[/p][/quote]So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all. The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place.[/p][/quote]https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=6qycF0ra qpg (not the original video which was of higher quality) London cyclist got knocked off his bike by a right turning car and then also got ran over by another car pulling out of the same junction, lawyers for both drivers told them to deny fault, one pleaded guilty on seeing the video in court, the other still denied, both were prosecuted very shortly after the footage was viewed in court, video evidence is also a form of "direct evidence" meaning it can stand on it's own and even win a court case. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Wed 19 Mar 14

charrlee says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives.

Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week.

Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.
If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter.

It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.
In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! !

You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it.

Oh well. Have a good evening.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives. Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week. Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.[/p][/quote]If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter. It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.[/p][/quote]In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! ! You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it. Oh well. Have a good evening. charrlee
  • Score: -3

12:16am Thu 20 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives.

Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week.

Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.
If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter.

It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.
In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! !

You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it.

Oh well. Have a good evening.
Thanks but there really is no need to apologise. It is appreciated though.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives. Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week. Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.[/p][/quote]If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter. It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.[/p][/quote]In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! ! You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it. Oh well. Have a good evening.[/p][/quote]Thanks but there really is no need to apologise. It is appreciated though. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -3

12:16am Thu 20 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

charrlee wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives.

Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week.

Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.
If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter.

It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.
In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! !

You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it.

Oh well. Have a good evening.
Thanks but there really is no need to apologise. It is appreciated though.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: I think I've had enough of this thread - it's about to disappear into the archives. Gilbert, it's been very interesting reading your posts today. I can't understand why you gave such a different impression of yourself last week. Gingercyclist, I am drained and exasperated with the tedium and monotony you generate. I assume you would call that a result. No doubt Cook will be commending your "sterling efforts" today on his Twitty page.[/p][/quote]If you actually look back over the last week or so, you took a reply from me to you as an attack, when it wasn't, and it all went from there. I forget the actual story, but I told you you mustn't disagree with the Echo Reader consensus, as it upsets them. This was in fact aimed at the fact you'd been so horrendously downvoted for stating a contrary opinion, not at you. You took it the wrong way. No matter. It was a story where the typical "who can think of the most gruesome punishment" competition appeared, and you spoke against it, if memory serves me.[/p][/quote]In that case I apologise to you, Gilbert, and look forward to some friendly battles. Unlike a certain cyclist, I usually do own up when I'm wrong. If I'm honest, I jumped to the wrong conclusion about you simply because of your nickname ! I don't like Viz, Benny Hill, Kenneth Williams, toilet jokes, double entendres, etc. I do like Julian Clary though because his humour is very "tongue in cheek"(yes, I threw that double entendre in for you, Gilbert ! Lol !) I suppose I'm more Dylan Moran, Stewart Lee, Tommy Tiernan, Kevin Bridges. But someone I loathe more than Benny Hill and Downfader is Al Murray the Pub Landlord ! ! You completely out-manoevered G-cyclist today in a very long and tenacious duel. The trouble was he didn't know he'd lost the argument, and the plot ! He seems to go through life Hoovering up information without evaluating it. Oh well. Have a good evening.[/p][/quote]Thanks but there really is no need to apologise. It is appreciated though. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

12:21am Thu 20 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
gilbertratchet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
charrlee wrote:
In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it.

You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again.

And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.
I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?
I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.
So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?
Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all.

The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place.
https://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=6qycF0ra

qpg (not the original video which was of higher quality)
London cyclist got knocked off his bike by a right turning car and then also got ran over by another car pulling out of the same junction, lawyers for both drivers told them to deny fault, one pleaded guilty on seeing the video in court, the other still denied, both were prosecuted very shortly after the footage was viewed in court, video evidence is also a form of "direct evidence" meaning it can stand on it's own and even win a court case.
I didn't bother watching this because I know, for a fact, that the video alone did not secure a conviction. Which it didn't. You simply believe it does, because your ting brain automatically assumes cyclists are always in the right and by extension that motorists are automatically guilty of whatever you claim them to be. Motion denied, you have not met my challenge.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: In normal conversation people use metaphors and all manner of turns of phrases and expressions, and they tease with ostensibly serious questions that mask humorous intent. Stand-up comedy is very, very popular, and more and more ordinary people are bringing sophisticated and even surrealistic elements into their everyday jokes and conversation. They so often allude to things without spelling it out. I think most people will have got my drift/joke when I referred to you as a Pedal Power Ranger. You, according to your reply, missed it. You, Michael, are like southy when you cannot tell the difference between when people are asking a serious question, and when they are teasing you. You are like southy when you turn conversations around to suit something you wish to say, ignoring the matter being discussed. You are like southy when you go on saying something despite having been proved wrong time and time again. And Michael, where do you work? You seem to be on this forum everyday for hours. Surely you are not in regular employment? Speaking for myself, I am retired and can do what I like.[/p][/quote]I knew what you meant by "pedal power ranger" but clearly you didn't get the hint that I don't wear lycra, show me one time I've turned a conversation around, show me one time I've been proven wrong and not admitted it and what, are you the self appointed employment officer now?[/p][/quote]I proved you wrong right here, when I demonstrated that not a single one of the four videos you posted clearly showed an offence being committed. Your response was to simply ignore it and repeat your claim. And here, again, I've gain-said your claim, and I am confident that you will simply ignore it because if proves you wrong and your southy-like mind can't accommodate that fact.[/p][/quote]So if someone recorded someone shooting you, it would't clearly show the offence being committed? Ok then, answer me this, how is that the courts can gain a conviction from grainy video evidence from a low quality security camera or CCTV in a highstreet if video evidence often doesn't show the offence being committed?[/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. The video shows someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. What offence, if any, has been committed, cannot possibly be determined from video alone. Was it murder? To what degree? Was it self defence? Was it manslaughter? Was it GBH? Was it unlawful wounding? What was the intent behind the shooting? None of this is shown in a video alone. It's impossible to even say what "the offence" is. It shows that a person discharged, or appeared to discharge a firearm at another person. Nothing more. The video may be used to support other evidence, that's all. The courts don't ever convict solely on video evidence. If the video alone was enough to conclusively prove a specific offence, why would we need a trial? Find me one case, ever, in which the ONLY piece of evidence was a recording of the offence taking place.[/p][/quote]https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=6qycF0ra qpg (not the original video which was of higher quality) London cyclist got knocked off his bike by a right turning car and then also got ran over by another car pulling out of the same junction, lawyers for both drivers told them to deny fault, one pleaded guilty on seeing the video in court, the other still denied, both were prosecuted very shortly after the footage was viewed in court, video evidence is also a form of "direct evidence" meaning it can stand on it's own and even win a court case.[/p][/quote]I didn't bother watching this because I know, for a fact, that the video alone did not secure a conviction. Which it didn't. You simply believe it does, because your ting brain automatically assumes cyclists are always in the right and by extension that motorists are automatically guilty of whatever you claim them to be. Motion denied, you have not met my challenge. gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

12:21am Thu 20 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...