Cycling Silk threats from driver case.

123457»

Comments

  • SimonAH
    SimonAH Posts: 3,730
    This is a genuine question, and not an attack I promis MBC.

    Was there a personal traumatic episode involving you or a loved one involving an accident between a motorist and a cyclist that has engendered you to invest as much effort in this cause as you do? Again, genuinely interested.
    FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
    CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
    Litespeed L3 for Strava bits

    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    No.
  • SimonAH
    SimonAH Posts: 3,730
    So what's the driver?
    FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
    CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
    Litespeed L3 for Strava bits

    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,116
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    You think I have a "vendatta" against drivers because I point out they break the law? Isn't that a bit hysterical?
    No, but reading your past threads on this forum it does look like you've got it in for drivers and a rather large chip on yor shoulder. Seems I'm not the only either judging by other people's posts about you.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    You think I have a "vendatta" against drivers because I point out they break the law? Isn't that a bit hysterical?
    No, but reading your past threads on this forum it does look like you've got it in for drivers and a rather large chip on yor shoulder.

    Which posts?
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    You think I have a "vendatta" against drivers because I point out they break the law? Isn't that a bit hysterical?
    No, but reading your past threads on this forum it does look like you've got it in for drivers and a rather large chip on yor shoulder. Seems I'm not the only either judging by other people's posts about you.
    All drivers or drivers who break the law/drive dangerously?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,116
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    You think I have a "vendatta" against drivers because I point out they break the law? Isn't that a bit hysterical?
    No, but reading your past threads on this forum it does look like you've got it in for drivers and a rather large chip on yor shoulder.

    Which posts?
    If anyone cares to have a look through a selection of these they should build uip an overall picture of where you're coming from:
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/search.php?author_id=503466&sr=posts
    From reading your posts over time it's the impression I get, though maybe you're just misunderstood? ;-)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    You think I have a "vendatta" against drivers because I point out they break the law? Isn't that a bit hysterical?
    No, but reading your past threads on this forum it does look like you've got it in for drivers and a rather large chip on yor shoulder.

    Which posts?
    From reading your posts over time it's the impression I get, though maybe you're just misunderstood? ;-)


    Which posts?
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    Seriously, dude, find a single post of mine that can fairly be described as "anti-motorist" and I'll pay a fiver to a charity you nominate.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    To have a war on anything must mean you are "anti" it, no?

    No point in quoting something verbatim and then trying to make out it means something different.....
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
    Oh give over, you've advocated a non-violent war on the motorist - that is anti-motorist. Those words are clear as day.

    FFS I knew this would be like arguing with a bollard, so I've done my bit and you can man up and pay your fiver or squirm around like a commie winning the lottery for the rest of time for all I care.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    PBo wrote:
    To have a war on anything must mean you are "anti" it, no?

    No point in quoting something verbatim and then trying to make out it means something different.....

    It's a bit of a stretch to say suggesting cheaper alternatives to private motoring comprises a war on private driving. I've steadily slagged off numpty drivers who break the law. This is no more "anti-motorist" than slagging off the Yorkshire Ripper is anti lorry driver.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
    Oh give over, you've advocated a non-violent war on the motorist - that is anti-motorist. Those words are clear as day.

    FFS I knew this would be like arguing with a bollard, so I've done my bit and you can man up and pay your fiver or squirm around like a commie winning the lottery for the rest of time for all I care.


    The Guardian were responding to Hammond's quote about "Ending the war on the motorist". The article explained there is no such war, they simply used the same catchy phrase to point out Hammond was talking cobblers. Context, see?

    Unthinkable? Declaring war on motoristsWhen the transport secretary said 'We will end the war on motorists', the obvious question was: what war on motorists?
  • jimmypippa
    jimmypippa Posts: 1,712
    Greg66 wrote:
    Origamist wrote:
    givecyclistsroom wrote:
    Convicted today.

    Good news. Thank you for pursuing this.

    Peculiarly, it proved harder to convince quite a few Bikeradar commuting cyclists of your case, than a magistrate in West London. Funny old world...

    Magistrates tend not to need much convincing when the defendant pleads guilty. £250 fine, £15 victim surcharge, £300 prosecution costs.

    And not referred back to the Crown Court for breach of his suspended sentence for wounding.


    Just found this thread.
    If I haven't got the wrong end of the stick, this seems a bit poor if his tactical decision to change his plea affects whether he'd be referred to the crown court for breach of a suspended sentence.
    http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6404
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
    Oh give over, you've advocated a non-violent war on the motorist - that is anti-motorist. Those words are clear as day.

    FFS I knew this would be like arguing with a bollard, so I've done my bit and you can man up and pay your fiver or squirm around like a commie winning the lottery for the rest of time for all I care.


    The Guardian were responding to Hammond's quote about "Ending the war on the motorist". The article explained there is no such war, they simply used the same catchy phrase to point out Hammond was talking cobblers. Context, see?

    Unthinkable? Declaring war on motoristsWhen the transport secretary said 'We will end the war on motorists', the obvious question was: what war on motorists?
    And the article was advocating starting one. As are you. And that is anti-motorist.

    Squrim squirm squrim.

    Usually when you're caught out like this (i.e. completly wrong) you just leave the thread.

    So you won't be paying your £5 then? How utterly predictable. Even if 100 people posted and agreed with me you'd still try and worm out of it.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
    Oh give over, you've advocated a non-violent war on the motorist - that is anti-motorist. Those words are clear as day.

    FFS I knew this would be like arguing with a bollard, so I've done my bit and you can man up and pay your fiver or squirm around like a commie winning the lottery for the rest of time for all I care.


    The Guardian were responding to Hammond's quote about "Ending the war on the motorist". The article explained there is no such war, they simply used the same catchy phrase to point out Hammond was talking cobblers. Context, see?

    Unthinkable? Declaring war on motoristsWhen the transport secretary said 'We will end the war on motorists', the obvious question was: what war on motorists?
    And the article was advocating starting one. As are you. And that is anti-motorist.

    Squrim squirm squrim.

    Usually when you're caught out like this (i.e. completly wrong) you just leave the thread.

    So you won't be paying your £5 then? How utterly predictable. Even if 100 people posted and agreed with me you'd still try and worm out of it.


    You think making public transport cheaper constitutes a "war"?
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    It might be a struggle to determine what Brekkie has said, and what he's shamelessly copied and pasted from others.


    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    a (non-violent) war on motorists, rather than the current system of preference, would be a start.
    viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12733254&p=16513434#p16513434


    That's from a Guardian editorial that suggests making non-car journeys cheaper. That's not anti-motorist in any way whatsoever, it would have no impact on them other than making alternatives cheaper.

    Next.
    Oh give over, you've advocated a non-violent war on the motorist - that is anti-motorist. Those words are clear as day.

    FFS I knew this would be like arguing with a bollard, so I've done my bit and you can man up and pay your fiver or squirm around like a commie winning the lottery for the rest of time for all I care.


    The Guardian were responding to Hammond's quote about "Ending the war on the motorist". The article explained there is no such war, they simply used the same catchy phrase to point out Hammond was talking cobblers. Context, see?

    Unthinkable? Declaring war on motoristsWhen the transport secretary said 'We will end the war on motorists', the obvious question was: what war on motorists?
    And the article was advocating starting one. As are you. And that is anti-motorist.

    Squrim squirm squrim.

    Usually when you're caught out like this (i.e. completly wrong) you just leave the thread.

    So you won't be paying your £5 then? How utterly predictable. Even if 100 people posted and agreed with me you'd still try and worm out of it.


    You think making public transport cheaper constitutes a "war"?
    Who cares what I think? They used that word, you quoted it. I've shown you quoting it. It is unquestionably anti-motorist, because you need to be "anti" something before you use words like "war" against them.

    You are so busted, and you know it. And now you're just embarassing yourself trying to get out of giving away a fiver to charity. I could make a comment about typical liberals here, but I'll leave it unsaid.
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    Hammond said "End the war on drivers"

    The Guardian said "There is no war" and "non-car alternatives should be cheaper"

    Explain to me how this is "anti-motorist" please. It would have no impact on drivers other than making alternatives cheaper.
  • Mr Sworld
    Mr Sworld Posts: 703
    Sorry W1 but quoting something doesn't necessary mean that's a view you support.

    I've quoted Hitler and Thatcher before in threads, it doesn't mean I'm a right wing tawt... ;-)
  • SimonAH
    SimonAH Posts: 3,730
    (walks away from thread as realises should know better)
    FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
    CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
    Litespeed L3 for Strava bits

    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    SimonAH wrote:
    (walks away from thread as realises should know better)

    Haven't seen Brekkie on such form since the infamous Cyclist of superhigway 7 tonight.... skirmish.

    Did you ever get round to refuting my second by second video analysis which suggested the fault lay with the cyclist, or did you just chuck in a few more comments against the motorist...?
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    Hammond said "End the war on drivers"

    The Guardian said "There is no war" and "non-car alternatives should be cheaper"

    Explain to me how this is "anti-motorist" please. It would have no impact on drivers other than making alternatives cheaper.

    They did say in response to hammond that there isn't a war, correct.

    They then suggested starting one!!!!
  • mybreakfastconsisted
    mybreakfastconsisted Posts: 1,018
    They amusingly mimic Hammond's language and suggest cheap public transport would constitute a "non-violent war against the motorist".

    If you think cheap bus fares is a war against drivers you're bonkers. It would make the roads less crowded for a start.
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

    If you think cheap bus fares is a war against drivers you're bonkers.

    Please quote and highlight where I said this?

    ....and then maybe you could get round to your response to my video breakdown from the "superhighway 7" thread. It's only been 14 months....
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    PBo wrote:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

    If you think cheap bus fares is a war against drivers you're bonkers.

    Please quote and highlight where I said this?

    ....and then maybe you could get round to your response to my video breakdown from the "superhighway 7" thread. It's only been 14 months....

    Good luck - he'll do what he always does when caught in a corner - squirm like a worm. You'll not get a clear reply, or an admission that he's wrong or been caught out. It's the same with any other loon with a blinkered, narrow agenda which they do not have the capacity to deviate from.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Mr Sworld wrote:
    Sorry W1 but quoting something doesn't necessary mean that's a view you support.

    I've quoted Hitler and Thatcher before in threads, it doesn't mean I'm a right wing tawt... ;-)

    You're correct, but what he said was:
    mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
    I'm pretty sure I haven't used other peoples' anti-motorist sentiments either, which ones are you thinking of?

    And I quoted one verbatim which unquestionably calls for a "war on motorists". And he doesn't think that's anti motorist.

Categories