On 27/09/2021 12:46 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> After a weekend in which motorists up and down the country ignored government advice and spent their days off sat in long queues desperately waiting to buy petrol it was inevitable that other road users might find the sight of so much standstill traffic slightly amusing.
>
> One fairy-cyclist apparently decided that chanting 'Queueing for petrol, I don't need petrol, because I'm on a fairy-bike' while riding around motorists trying to buy petrol would be the best way of promoting the many benefits of fairy-cycling.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-27-september-2020-286667#live-blog-item-28077

Too many fairy-cyclists "think" like that fairy-cyclist.

They should all grow up.

In the meantime, Mason failed to add the next story on the road.cc
website. here it is:

QUOTE:
Police search for man who keeps cycling around village naked
Police have been out on patrol after residents in a quiet
Buckinghamshire village kept reporting a man cycling around naked.

The Winslow neighbourhood team have scoured Whaddon village over the
past month following the strange reports, Bucks Free Press reports.
(link is external)

A Thames Valley Police spokesperson from Aylesbury Vale said: “The
Winslow neighbourhood team have been out on foot patrol in and around
Whaddon village following reports over the last month that a male has
been seen cycling around whilst naked.

“While there may be an innocent explanation for this behaviour, it has
led to some members of the public to become concerned and report it to us."
ENDQUOTE

These days, the police seem to be doing their utmost to excuse crime.
There cannot possibly be an innocent explanation for that
fairy-cyclist's behaviour.

Until the fairy-cyclist is caught, local people - especially lone women
- should be on their guard whilst out and about.

On 27/09/2021 13:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 12:46 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> One cyclist apparently decided that chanting 'Queueing for petrol, I
> don't need petrol, because I'm on a bike' while riding around
> motorists trying to buy petrol would be the best way of promoting
> the many benefits of cycling.
>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-27-september-2020-286667#live-blog-item-28077
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Too many cyclists "think" like that cyclist.

The problem being...?

On Friday I was 100 miles from home with 40 miles in the tank and bought
40 litres. Motorist are able to think that people queing up for a spit
in the tank they won't need for a week are stupid.

(And why the inverted commas?)

> They should all grow up.
>
> In the meantime, Mason failed to add the next story on the road.cc
> website. here it is:
>
> QUOTE: Police search for man who keeps cycling around village naked
> Police have been out on patrol after residents in a quiet
> Buckinghamshire village kept reporting a man cycling around naked.

Is there anything in the Highway Code about this?

> Until the person is caught, local people - especially lone women -
> should be on their guard whilst out and about.

Nothing relevant to cycling.

On 28/09/2021 11:48 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 27/09/2021 13:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/09/2021 12:46 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> One cyclist apparently decided that chanting 'Queueing for petrol, I
>> don't need petrol, because I'm on a bike' while riding around
>> motorists trying to buy petrol would be the best way of promoting
>> the many benefits of cycling.
>
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-27-september-2020-286667#live-blog-item-28077
>
>> Too many cyclists "think" like that cyclist.
>
> The problem being...?

....that their childish and reprehensible behaviour is reinforced by
publications such as the execrable "road.cc" and by people (like Mason)
with a screw decidedly loose.

The guy at the petrol station, given the stress levels of the people he
was attacking, ran the risk of being physically responded to. And who
could seriously blame anyone for doing it?

What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise stress
levels any more than the situation was already causing? Perhaps he has a
mental age of 8.

> On Friday I was 100 miles from home with 40 miles in the tank and bought
> 40 litres.

I filled the tank with diesel on Friday morning. My wife went out in her
car and had to queue, but got a full tank. We have used neither car
since Friday (but then, we usually wouldn't travel at the weekend
anyway). Two full tanks, these days, ought to last for more than a month.

> Motorist are able to think that people queing up for a spit
> in the tank they won't need for a week are stupid.

It's hardly advisable in the great scheme of things, but the idea of not
being able to travel when necessary is a powerful incentive for seeking
fuel. This is especially so when so many people are still justifiably
loath to travel by public transport where a small enclosed space may
have to be shared with anti-vaxxers.

> (And why the inverted commas?)

No-one sensible would believe that the idiot cited by Mason was thinking
at all. Or perhaps even capable of it.

>> They should all grow up.
>>
>> In the meantime, Mason failed to add the next story on the road.cc
>> website. here it is:
>>
>> QUOTE: Police search for man who keeps cycling around village naked
>> Police have been out on patrol after residents in a quiet
>> Buckinghamshire village kept reporting a man cycling around naked.
>
> Is there anything in the Highway Code about this?

I doubt it. There probably isn't anything in the Highway Code forbidding
fairy-cyclists to commit street robberies. But some of them do it just
the same, as you well know.

>> Until the person is caught, local people - especially lone women -
>> should be on their guard whilst out and about.
>
> Nothing relevant to [fairy-]cycling.

That may be your view. I expect you'd say the same about the
fairy-cyclist described by Mason.

On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 11:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 27/09/2021 13:48, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2021 12:46 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> One cyclist apparently decided that chanting 'Queueing for
>>> petrol, I don't need petrol, because I'm on a bike' while riding
>>> around motorists trying to buy petrol would be the best way of
>>> promoting the many benefits of cycling.
>>
>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-27-september-2020-286667#live-blog-item-28077
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Too many cyclists "think" like that cyclist.
>>
>> The problem being...?
>
> ...that their childish and reprehensible behaviour is reinforced by
> publications such as the execrable "road.cc" and by people (like
> Mason) with a screw decidedly loose.
>
> The guy at the petrol station, given the stress levels of the people
> he was attacking, ran the risk of being physically responded to. And
> who could seriously blame anyone for doing it?

That's for him to consider.

> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise stress
> levels any more than the situation was already causing?

For many, the stress is self imposed. Of course my 60 mile shortfall on
Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting "I don't need
petrol" would have made me smile.

> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.

Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist into
perspective.

>> On Friday I was 100 miles from home with 40 miles in the tank and
>> bought 40 litres.
>
> I filled the tank with diesel on Friday morning. My wife went out in
> her car and had to queue, but got a full tank. We have used neither
> car since Friday (but then, we usually wouldn't travel at the weekend
> anyway). Two full tanks, these days, ought to last for more than a
> month.
>
>> Motorist are able to think that people queing up for a spit in the
>> tank they won't need for a week are stupid.
>
> It's hardly advisable in the great scheme of things, but the idea of
> not being able to travel when necessary

"Necessary" is very subjective, particularly when it concerns car usage.

> is a powerful incentive for seeking fuel. This is especially so when
> so many people are still justifiably loath to travel by public
> transport where a small enclosed space may have to be shared with
> anti-vaxxers.

Yes, Project Fear has done a lot of damage. "Justifiable" is very
subjective.

>> (And why the inverted commas?)
>
> No-one sensible would believe that the idiot cited by Mason was
> thinking at all. Or perhaps even capable of it.

"Sensible" is very subjective.

>>> They should all grow up.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, Mason failed to add the next story on the
>>> road.cc website. here it is:
>>>
>>> QUOTE: Police search for man who keeps cycling around village
>>> naked Police have been out on patrol after residents in a quiet
>>> Buckinghamshire village kept reporting a man cycling around
>>> naked.
>>
>> Is there anything in the Highway Code about this?
>
> I doubt it. There probably isn't anything in the Highway Code
> forbidding cyclists to commit street robberies. But some of them do
> it just the same, as you well know.
>
>>> Until the person is caught, local people - especially lone women
>>> - should be on their guard whilst out and about.
>>
>> Nothing relevant to cycling.
>
> That may be your view. I expect you'd say the same about the cyclist
> described by Mason.

I suggest that was cycling related. After all, being in a queue with no
escape tends to be an activity that's fairly unique to motorists.

On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 11:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2021 13:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/2021 12:46 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> One cyclist apparently decided that chanting 'Queueing for
>>>> petrol, I don't need petrol, because I'm on a bike' while riding
>>>> around motorists trying to buy petrol would be the best way of
>>>> promoting the many benefits of cycling.
>
>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-27-september-2020-286667#live-blog-item-28077
>
>>>> Too many cyclists "think" like that cyclist.
>
>>> The problem being...?
>
>> ...that their childish and reprehensible behaviour is reinforced by
>> publications such as the execrable "road.cc" and by people (like
>> Mason) with a screw decidedly loose.
>>
>> The guy at the petrol station, given the stress levels of the people
>> he was attacking, ran the risk of being physically responded to. And
>> who could seriously blame anyone for doing it?
>
> That's for him to consider.

Indeed it is. Let us hope for his sake that he takes himself in hand.
>
>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise stress
>> levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>
> For many, the stress is self imposed. Of course my 60 mile shortfall on
> Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting "I don't need
> petrol" would have made me smile.

For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or to
take a relative to hospital or collect their children from school, such
an indulgent sense of "humour" might be more difficult to summon up.
>
>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>
> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist into
> perspective.

Does it? How?

>>> On Friday I was 100 miles from home with 40 miles in the tank and
>>> bought 40 litres.
>
>> I filled the tank with diesel on Friday morning. My wife went out in
>> her car and had to queue, but got a full tank. We have used neither
>> car since Friday (but then, we usually wouldn't travel at the weekend
>> anyway). Two full tanks, these days, ought to last for more than a
>> month.
>
>>> Motorist are able to think that people queing up for a spit in the
>>> tank they won't need for a week are stupid.
>
>> It's hardly advisable in the great scheme of things, but the idea of
>> not being able to travel when necessary
>
> "Necessary" is very subjective, particularly when it concerns car usage.

Its definition lies purely with the person doing (or wishing to do) the
travelling. It certainly isn't up to a local council, the ridiculous
road.cc - or you.

>> is a powerful incentive for seeking fuel. This is especially so when
>> so many people are still justifiably loath to travel by public
>> transport where a small enclosed space may have to be shared with
>> anti-vaxxers.
>
> Yes, Project Fear has done a lot of damage. "Justifiable" is very
> subjective.

I would not travel on a bus or train at the moment. It's out of the
question. Maybe on an aeroplane, where behaviour is more controllable
and controlled.
>
>>> (And why the inverted commas?)
>
>> No-one sensible would believe that the idiot cited by Mason was
>> thinking at all. Or perhaps even capable of it.
>
> "Sensible" is very subjective.

Not in that instance.
>
>>>> They should all grow up.
>
>>>> In the meantime, Mason failed to add the next story on the
>>>> road.cc website. here it is:
>
>>>> QUOTE: Police search for man who keeps cycling around village
>>>> naked Police have been out on patrol after residents in a quiet
>>>> Buckinghamshire village kept reporting a man cycling around
>>>> naked.
>
>>> Is there anything in the Highway Code about this?
>
>> I doubt it. There probably isn't anything in the Highway Code
>> forbidding cyclists to commit street robberies. But some of them do
>> it just the same, as you well know.
>
>>>> Until the person is caught, local people - especially lone women
>>>> - should be on their guard whilst out and about.
>>>
>>> Nothing relevant to cycling.
>>
>> That may be your view. I expect you'd say the same about the cyclist
>> described by Mason.
>
> I suggest that was cycling related. After all, being in a queue with no
> escape tends to be an activity that's fairly unique to motorists.

A story about a man on a bicycle is relevant to cycling.

Mason's typical c&p about some accident befalling a man or woman in a
car or lorry is not relevant to cycling.

On 28/09/2021 23:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise
>>> stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>>
>> For many, the stress is self imposed. Of course my 60 mile
>> shortfall on Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting
>> "I don't need petrol" would have made me smile.
>
> For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or to
> take a relative to hospital or collect their children from school,
> such an indulgent sense of "humour" might be more difficult to summon
> up.

Their predicament is the fault of the cyclist? Do lighten up.

>>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>>
>> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist
>> into perspective.
>
> Does it? How?

I suggest such a motorist would be closer to 6.

Strange how you suggest that a cyclist mocking motorists could invite a
physical attack yet you think cycists (with no means of attacking
motorists) are cry babies for complaining when a motorist sounds the horn.

On 28/09/2021 11:44 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 28/09/2021 23:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise
>>>> stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>
>>> For many, the stress is self imposed.

Irrespective of whatever strange view you might have on that separate
issue, what possible reason could that fairy-cyclist have had for
wishing to raise stress levels any more than the situation was already
causing?

[Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]

>>> Of course my 60 mile
>>> shortfall on Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting
>>> "I don't need petrol" would have made me smile.
>
>> For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or to
>> take a relative to hospital or collect their children from school,
>> an indulgent reaction to such a sense of "humour" might be more
>> difficult to summon up.
>
> Their predicament is the fault of the cyclist? Do lighten up.

Any "push back" which that loony fairy-cyclist encountered from people
whose predicament he was mocking would be his own fault.

At least you haven't denied that.

>>>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>
>>> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist
>>> into perspective.
>
>> Does it? How?
>
> I suggest such a motorist would be closer to 6.

Do you?

How interesting.

> Strange how you suggest that a cyclist mocking motorists could invite a
> physical attack yet you think cycists (with no means of attacking
> motorists) are cry babies for complaining when a motorist sounds the horn.

What does that have to do with the instant case?

Or are you arguing that no driver could ever possibly have reason to
sound the horn which is a legal requirement on a motor vehicle (still
less that no fairy-cyclist ever needs to be reminded of the presence of
a vehicle of whose presence he appears not to be aware)?

On 28/09/2021 23:53, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 11:44 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 23:03, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise
>>>>> stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>>
>>>> For many, the stress is self imposed.
>
> Irrespective of whatever strange view you might have on that separate
> issue, what possible reason could that cyclist have had for
> wishing to raise stress levels any more than the situation was already
> causing?

"Strange" is your opinion. Many find it strange that some people have
organised themselves in such a way that they have become dependant on a
luxury item.

> [Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]

I haven't forgotten.

>>>> Of course my 60 mile
>>>> shortfall on Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting
>>>> "I don't need petrol" would have made me smile.
>>
>>> For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or to
>>> take a relative to hospital or collect their children from school,
>>> an indulgent reaction to such a sense of "humour" might be more
>>> difficult to summon up.
>>
>> Their predicament is the fault of the cyclist? Do lighten up.
>
> Any "push back" which that loony cyclist encountered from people
> whose predicament he was mocking would be his own fault.
>
> At least you haven't denied that.
>
>>>>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>>
>>>> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist
>>>> into perspective.
>>
>>> Does it? How?
>>
>> I suggest such a motorist would be closer to 6.
>
> Do you?

Absolutely

> How interesting.
>
>> Strange how you suggest that a cyclist mocking motorists could invite
>> a physical attack yet you think cycists (with no means of attacking
>> motorists) are cry babies for complaining when a motorist sounds the
>> horn.
>
> What does that have to do with the instant case?

There is no difference. Except for a differenty party initiating the
exchange.

> Or are you arguing that no driver could ever possibly have reason to
> sound the horn which is a legal requirement on a motor vehicle (still
> less that no cyclist ever needs to be reminded of the presence of
> a vehicle of whose presence he appears not to be aware)?

If a driver wants to "warn" someone of their presence it has to be done
in a way that the target has time to process and react. This would be
something like 3 to 5 seconds. It is not simultaneous parp and foot
down. If a driver thinks their presence is putting someone in danger the
driver has the means to slow down.

TMS320 wrote:
> On 28/09/2021 23:53, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 11:44 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 23:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise
>>>>>> stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>>>
>>>>> For many, the stress is self imposed.
>>
>> Irrespective of whatever strange view you might have on that separate
>> issue, what possible reason could that cyclist have had for
>> wishing to raise stress levels any more than the situation was
>> already causing?
>
> "Strange" is your opinion. Many find it strange that some people have
> organised themselves in such a way that they have become dependant on
> a luxury item.
>
>> [Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]
>
> I haven't forgotten.
>
>>>>> Of course my 60 mile
>>>>> shortfall on Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up
>>>>> chanting "I don't need petrol" would have made me smile.
>>>
>>>> For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or
>>>> to take a relative to hospital or collect their children from
>>>> school, an indulgent reaction to such a sense of "humour" might be
>>>> more difficult to summon up.
>>>
>>> Their predicament is the fault of the cyclist? Do lighten up.
>>
>> Any "push back" which that loony cyclist encountered from people
>> whose predicament he was mocking would be his own fault.
>>
>> At least you haven't denied that.
>>
>>>>>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>>>
>>>>> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist
>>>>> into perspective.
>>>
>>>> Does it? How?
>>>
>>> I suggest such a motorist would be closer to 6.
>>
>> Do you?
>
> Absolutely
>
>> How interesting.
>>
>>> Strange how you suggest that a cyclist mocking motorists could
>>> invite a physical attack yet you think cycists (with no means of
>>> attacking motorists) are cry babies for complaining when a motorist
>>> sounds the horn.
>>
>> What does that have to do with the instant case?
>
> There is no difference. Except for a differenty party initiating the
> exchange.
>
>> Or are you arguing that no driver could ever possibly have reason to
>> sound the horn which is a legal requirement on a motor vehicle (still
>> less that no cyclist ever needs to be reminded of the presence of
>> a vehicle of whose presence he appears not to be aware)?
>
> If a driver wants to "warn" someone of their presence it has to be
> done in a way that the target has time to process and react. This
> would be something like 3 to 5 seconds. It is not simultaneous parp
> and foot down. If a driver thinks their presence is putting someone
> in danger the driver has the means to slow down.

Prat.

On 30/09/21 08:46, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> Prat.
>
>

I pooped on a fork sliding down a hill because I can.

inbred tit tranny

On 29/09/2021 08:10 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 28/09/2021 23:53, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 11:44 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 23:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2021 01:32 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2021 12:07, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> What possible reason could he have had for wishing to raise
>>>>>> stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>
>>>>> For many, the stress is self imposed.
>
>> Irrespective of whatever strange view you might have on that separate
>> issue, what possible reason could that cyclist have had for wishing to
>> raise stress levels any more than the situation was already causing?
>
> "Strange" is your opinion. Many find it strange that some people have
> organised themselves in such a way that they have become dependant on a
> luxury item.

Some people (including one not very far from this newsgroup today) have
become dependant on certain substances.

>> [Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]

> I haven't forgotten.

But you can't answer it.

Fair enough.
>
>>>>> Of course my 60 mile
>>>>> shortfall on Friday was a concern but a cyclist turning up chanting
>>>>> "I don't need petrol" would have made me smile.
>
>>>> For you, I can believe that. For someone unable to get to work, or to
>>>> take a relative to hospital or collect their children from school,
>>>> an indulgent reaction to such a sense of "humour" might be more
>>>> difficult to summon up.
>
>>> Their predicament is the fault of the cyclist? Do lighten up.
>
>> Any "push back" which that loony cyclist encountered from people whose
>> predicament he was mocking would be his own fault.
>> At least you haven't denied that.
>
>>>>>> Perhaps he has a mental age of 8.
>
>>>>> Which puts the age of a motorist that physically attacks a cyclist
>>>>> into perspective.
>
>>>> Does it? How?
>
>>> I suggest such a motorist would be closer to 6.
>
>> Do you?
>
> Absolutely
>
How interesting.
>
>>> Strange how you suggest that a cyclist mocking motorists could invite
>>> a physical attack yet you think cycists (with no means of attacking
>>> motorists) are cry babies for complaining when a motorist sounds the
>>> horn.
>>
>> What does that have to do with the instant case?
>
> There is no difference. Except for a differenty party initiating the
> exchange.

It's interesting that you think that there is no difference between use
of a legally-required accessory and a deliberate and totally unnecessary
taunt of someone in a stressful situation.

>> Or are you arguing that no driver could ever possibly have reason to
>> sound the horn which is a legal requirement on a motor vehicle (still
>> less that no cyclist ever needs to be reminded of the presence of a
>> vehicle of whose presence he appears not to be aware)?
>
> If a driver wants to "warn" someone of their presence it has to be done
> in a way that the target has time to process and react. This would be
> something like 3 to 5 seconds. It is not simultaneous parp and foot
> down. If a driver thinks their presence is putting someone in danger the
> driver has the means to slow down.

Well, that's your opinion, and I'm not necessarily arguing that it has
no validity. And as you will no doubt remember, I am no fan of
motor-vehicle horns or their misuse and am a great fan of using the
brakes to avoid danger (that's assuming that brakes are fitted, of course).

But others will have opinions at some variance with yours (and, indeed,
with mine).

What we each have to remember is that it isn't all about us.

On 30/09/2021 10:16, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/09/2021 08:10 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 28/09/2021 23:53, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> [Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]
>
>> I haven't forgotten.
>
> But you can't answer it.

Not 'can't' but 'dont want to'. I believe this his is permitted.

> It's interesting that you think that there is no difference between
> use of a legally-required accessory...

From uk.legal.moderated -
On 02/09/2021 18:17, JNugent wrote:
> These are all man-made rules, not forces of nature.

The cyclist was using an accessory fitted by biology.

<...>

> Well, that's your opinion, and I'm not necessarily arguing that it
> has no validity. And as you will no doubt remember, I am no fan of
> motor-vehicle horns or their misuse and am a great fan of using the
> brakes to avoid danger (that's assuming that brakes are fitted, of
> course).

Then stop arguing.

On 30/09/2021 11:31 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 30/09/2021 10:16, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 08:10 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2021 23:53, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> [Did you forget that I'd asked that question?]
>>
>>> I haven't forgotten.
>>
>> But you can't answer it.
>
> Not 'can't' but 'dont want to'. I believe this his is permitted.

Like I said, you can't answer it.

In fact, you've now snipped it.
>
>> It's interesting that you think that there is no difference between
>> use of a legally-required accessory...

> From uk.legal.moderated -
> On 02/09/2021 18:17, JNugent wrote:
> > These are all man-made rules, not forces of nature.

They have to be obeyed!

That's a difference between (most) drivers and (most) fairy-cyclists.

Some fairy-cyclists even think it "clever" to remove the brakes from
their fairy-bikes.

> The cyclist was using an accessory fitted by biology.

> <...>
>
>> Well, that's your opinion, and I'm not necessarily arguing that it
>> has no validity. And as you will no doubt remember, I am no fan of
>> motor-vehicle horns or their misuse and am a great fan of using the
>> brakes to avoid danger (that's assuming that brakes are fitted, of
>> course).
>
> Then stop arguing.

How about you stop supporting [insert suitably apposite and abusive
adjective] idiots like the retarded fairy-cyclist who thought it "funny"
to inflame what will already have been a distressing and tense situation?

On 30/09/2021 11:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 11:31 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 30/09/2021 10:16, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Not 'can't' but 'dont want to'. I believe this his is permitted.
>
> Like I said, you can't answer it.

Your telepathic abilities have not improved.

> In fact, you've now snipped it.

Shrug

>>> It's interesting that you think that there is no difference
>>> between use of a legally-required accessory...
>
>> From uk.legal.moderated - On 02/09/2021 18:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> These are all man-made rules, not forces of nature.
>
> They have to be obeyed!

Yes, forces of nature tend to be non-negotiable.

Your lack of response about biology is noted.

> That's a difference between (most) drivers and (most) cyclists.

Have you never broken a speed limit? You only need to supply a single
word answer:-
~ yes
~ no

<...>

>> Then stop arguing.
>
> How about you stop supporting [insert suitably apposite and abusive
> adjective] idiots like the retarded cyclist who thought it
> "funny" to inflame what will already have been a distressing and
> tense situation?

Of course it's amusing. Don't be so stupid.

Stop supporting people that use the horn in an improper manner.