Ah. Apparently it's all our fault
Comments
-
arran77 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Agent57 wrote:CookeeeMonster wrote:
Good to know, but I was joking.
I turn on the lights on my motorbike when I ride it, even in daylight. But it's a manual job for me.
If you ask Arran nicely where he took the pic of the hookers, they could perhaps sort the hand job for you.
Based on my poor googling skills they're Spanish - ladies of the night there are required to wear high viz there to increase their safety
Ah, safe sex.
Very wise in this day and age.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:arran77 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Agent57 wrote:CookeeeMonster wrote:
Good to know, but I was joking.
I turn on the lights on my motorbike when I ride it, even in daylight. But it's a manual job for me.
If you ask Arran nicely where he took the pic of the hookers, they could perhaps sort the hand job for you.
Based on my poor googling skills they're Spanish - ladies of the night there are required to wear high viz there to increase their safety
Ah, safe sex.
Very wise in this day and age.
Absolutely.
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
At least they will be able to see you coming 0
-
Boom boom0
-
@airbag
Why don't you actually read my post you 'tard. It addresses all the points you've just made, because they're the same points you've made already, and they're just as stupid the second time
This has to be the put down of the century. I just wish I had thought of it first. Chapeau sir0 -
Agent57 wrote:DJFish wrote:Have you ever wondered why bikers keep their lights on during the day?
Is it Volvo envy?
Could be, I often drive with my lights on during the day so people think I'm in a Volvo, I also liketo select reverse briefly before moving off so people behind think I'm driving an automatic, but then I'm a bit odd.0 -
BigMat wrote:Its pretty disappointing from the police. When I have spoken to them the suggestion seems to be that there is a wealth of statistical evidence suggesting that most accidents are actually the cyclists' fault and that adopting these measures (hi-viz, more lights, helmets) would make a real difference. It would be nice if they could publish some of that information. Until then they can bog off.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrongNo apology, you'll note. Also, crucially, no mention of how wrong Johnson was. I asked TfL what their answer was. Astonishingly, their figures show that in accidents were a cyclist was killed or badly hurt the cyclist was presumed to have committed an offence in just 6% of cases. The vehicle driver was assumed to have done so 56% of the time while 39% of the time it wasn't clear. This information was passed to Johnson before the Olympics, TfL said.
and
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/25/cycling-governed-dimwitsThe most authoritative statistics on blame in bike accidents came from the quasi-official Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), which analysed police reports from 2005-7 for the Department for Transport (DfT). Their 2009 report found that with adult cyclists killed or seriously injured, police found drivers solely to blame in 60-75% of cases. As a TRL researcher pointed out to me at the time, this is the conclusion of police, not usually known as militant pro-cyclists.
So yes, they can bog off...0 -
0
-
airbag wrote:
Why don't you actually read my post you 'tard. It addresses all the points you've just made, because they're the same points you've made already, and they're just as stupid the second time.
You didn't actually address a single point I made. You imagined one, claimed I made it, and then angrily (and quite badly) addressed the point you invented.
Now you appear to be going nuts about a point you created yourself. Very strange!0
