Forum home Road cycling forum The bottom bracket

Adam Rayner is a ..........

2»

Posts

  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    I read that transcript, he really does not say what the OP originally told us.

    He is basically arguing against JV's assumption that because someone puts on Headphones they are choosing to risk their life by saying he still has a responsibility NOT to crush cyclists under his wheels regardless of how aroogant etc they are.

    No doubt the guys does not like cyclists from previous posts and he is fat, but in this case, nothing to complain about to be honest.

    In fact he could be applauded for saying he maintains a responsibility to protect cyclists regardless of their approach to the road......

    I disagree with you. His choice of words and obvious relish at mimicking running over a cylclist was out of order. He qualified it by saying he has a duty under the law not to "run 'em [cyclists] over" and it "wouldn't wash". The point is he has been given a platform to speak on and unfortunately there are many knuckle dragging psychos who will take the opposite view that they will scare us or even attempt to run us down and to whom I think he is playing. To me he is yet another idiot giving the impression that cyclists are a nuisance or a menace. Why did he say what he did? As much as he appears to want to run us [cyclists] down he knows he can't, but he has still said it. Why can't he be more mature? He should have restricted his pathetic selfish petrol head views to the subject he was invited to speak about which was pedestrians crossing roads wearing headphones or using their mobile phones. Even he should realise this poses probably more risk in busy places for cyclists than drivers of vehicles.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • dilemna wrote:
    I read that transcript, he really does not say what the OP originally told us.

    He is basically arguing against JV's assumption that because someone puts on Headphones they are choosing to risk their life by saying he still has a responsibility NOT to crush cyclists under his wheels regardless of how aroogant etc they are.

    No doubt the guys does not like cyclists from previous posts and he is fat, but in this case, nothing to complain about to be honest.

    In fact he could be applauded for saying he maintains a responsibility to protect cyclists regardless of their approach to the road......

    I disagree with you. His choice of words and obvious relish at mimicking running over a cylclist was out of order. He qualified it by saying he has a duty under the law not to "run 'em [cyclists] over" and it "wouldn't wash". The point is he has been given a platform to speak on and unfortunately there are many knuckle dragging psychos who will take the opposite view that they will scare us or even attempt to run us down and to whom I think he is playing. To me he is yet another idiot giving the impression that cyclists are a nuisance or a menace. Why did he say what he did? As much as he appears to want to run us [cyclists] down he knows he can't, but he has still said it. Why can't he be more mature? He should have restricted his pathetic selfish petrol head views to the subject he was invited to speak about which was pedestrians crossing roads wearing headphones or using their mobile phones. Even he should realise this poses probably more risk in busy places for cyclists than drivers of vehicles.

    Okay
  • TommyEssTommyEss Posts: 1,855
    Who's Adam Rayner?
    Cannondale Synapse 105, Giant Defy 3, Giant Omnium, Giant Trance X2, EMC R1.0, Ridgeback Platinum, On One Il Pompino...
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,443
    dilemna wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    NapoleonD wrote:
    Hmmm. Just listened to it. He doesn't quite say that.

    I'm sure the OP would never massage the facts to suit an argument, you must be wrong! :wink:

    Prat.

    :lol: I love your debating style, the way you back up all your points with facts tinged with a hint of wit and never result in name calling :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.