Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?

It’s true that much of the discussion to the forthcoming revisions has focused on issues such as the introduction of a Hierarchy of Road Users in favour of the most vulnerable, plus recommending that drivers leave a minimum passing distance of 1.5 metres when overtaking a cyclist.

Today, however, we’re answering some of the most common ‘What about … ’ questions we’ve received in our mailbox by looking at some of the changes that are directed at you, as a cyclist, and how they differ from the existing version.

(As a side note, one thing that is clear from those emails is that there are a lot of people who are entirely unfamiliar with the Highway Code as it stands right now, and even less so with the changes being made to it).

> A lot of motorists really aren't happy about impending changes to the Highway Code

Rules for cyclists will continue to form Rules 59 to 82 of the Highway Code when the new version, laid before Parliament a fortnight ago, comes into force in January.

However, some of those rules and advice to riders have been combined, some new ones have been introduced, and there is a lot of rephrasing and rewriting in between – often, simply to provide extra clarity, but also in certain cases going much farther.

Let‘s start with one question typically raised about cyclists using the road quite lawfully, but perhaps the most misunderstood issue by many motorists.

"Why are cyclists riding two abreast when they have to ride single file?"

Currently, Rule 66 says, amongst other things, that cyclists

… should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends …

That has been extensively reworded, thanks in part to the input of cycling campaigners during the consultation phase, and makes it clear that riding two abreast is permitted and can, in fact be safer for riders. Here’s the new version:

Be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.

"Cyclists should be made to wear hi-vis clothing and banned from riding in dark clothes"

The current version of the Highway Code says that cyclists

… should wear … light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

That has now been toned down to read:

Light-coloured or fluorescent clothing can help other road users to see you in daylight and poor light, while reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) can increase your visibility in the dark.

"Cyclists are a danger to pedestrians"

The Hierarchy of Road Users introduced in the new version is aimed at ensuring that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others – meaning that in terms of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, the onus is on cyclists.

There are a couple of rules in the new version that explicitly address situations in which cyclists are sharing space with pedestrians. Rule 62, for example, says in part that on

… shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older adults or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary..

Meanwhile, new Rule 63 says:

Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.
When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. You should not pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary.

And on a similar point, and again in line with the Hierarchy of Road Users, part of Rule 74 makes clear that pedestrians have priority at junctions:

When turning into or out of a side road, you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross.

"Cyclists should be banned from riding in the middle of the road"

Among the new rules being introduced are two which aim to give cyclists clearer guidance and advice on road positioning and at junctions, the first of which makes clear that primary position is preferable for safety reasons in a number of specific situations.

New Rule 72 Road positioning.
When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation.
1. Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations:
• on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely
• in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake
• at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you
2. When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads.

New Rule 73 Junctions.
Some junctions, particularly those with traffic lights, have special cycle facilities, including small cycle traffic lights at eye-level height, which may allow you to move or cross separately from or ahead of other traffic. Use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier.
At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle (see Rules 170 to 190).. Position yourself in the centre of your chosen lane, where you feel able to do this safely, to make yourself as visible as possible and to avoid being overtaken where this would be dangerous. If you do not feel safe to proceed in this way, you may prefer to dismount and wheel your bike across the junction.

Finally, a number of other correspondents said that the Highway Code should make clear that cyclists should stop at red lights, and we’re very happy to help clarify that one. Rule 69, which remains unchanged, states:

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

Full details of the forthcoming changes to the Highway Code can be found in a document published by the Department for Transport (DfT) entitled Table of Changes to the Highway Code (link is external), and we would strongly recommend reading through the old and new wordings of Rules 59-82.

The document shows before and after versions of the rules, side-by-side. The existing wording is in the left-hand column with deletions highlighted in yellow, while the new version is in the right-hand column with additions highlighted in grey.

And while this article has focused on some of the new and existing rules for cyclists, it is worth bearing in mind that the prime reason for the changes is to provide additional protection to vulnerable road users, as the DfT points out in its document laid before Parliament under the title Explanatory Memorandum to the Revision of the Highway Code Introduction and Rules to Improve Road Safety for Cyclists, Pedestrians and Horse Riders (link is external).

In that Explanatory Memorandum, the DfT says:

The alterations seek to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders who are the most at risk when using the road and provide clarity, particularly on driver responsibility, on existing guidance.

It adds:

The proposed alterations to The Code improve the guidance provided on many aspects of driver interaction with those most at risk on the road, tackling the safety issues that the most vulnerable groups face, or perceive to face, when travelling on our roads.

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655

On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?

Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.

If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
specific items.

On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
>> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?

> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.

> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
> specific items.

Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited email
questions should be read as "expected to obey"?

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:50:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
> > effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
> > prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
> > cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>
> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
> specific items.

Most drivers are under the illusion that plastic hats, yellow jackets and bells are compulsary, cycling two abreast is banned and that speeding and drink limits apply to cyclists. No wonder the new rules and laws are confusing to them.

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:50:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when
>>> would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>>
>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
>> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
>> specific items.
>
> Most drivers are under the illusion that plastic hats, yellow jackets
> and bells are compulsary, cycling two abreast is banned and that
> speeding and drink limits apply to cyclists. No wonder the new rules
> and laws are confusing to them.

Nobody gives shit about scum cyclists. Have you ever had a fuck?

On 15/12/21 20:03, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Nobody gives shit about scum cyclists. Have you ever had a fuck?

What does that have to do with bicycles, pervert?
You are also a liar. I give a shit about bicyclists, scum and otherwise.

On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
>>> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
>
>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>
>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
>> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
>> specific items.
>
> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited email
> questions should be read as "expected to obey"?

No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.

On 15/12/2021 11:11 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>>>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>>>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
>>>> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
>
>>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>
>>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
>>> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
>>> specific items.
>
>> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited email
>> questions should be read as "expected to obey"?
>
> No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.

No-one is talking about the existence or non-existence of legal
requirements. Those "rules" (the law) exist.

The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the effect: "when
would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?".

My observation is that this should be read as "when will cyclists be
expected to obey the law?", with an implied reference to cyclist
law-breaking with regard to things such as footway cycling,
pedestrian-area cycling, failure to recognise and obey red traffic
lights, one-way working, etc.

You are being evasive.

> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655

99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could not make
it?
Don't be shy.

On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>
>
> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
> When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could not make
> it?
> Don't be shy.
>
>
Pervert.
This is a bicycling newsgroup.

Peter Keller wrote:
> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>
>>
>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
>> When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could
>> not make it?
>> Don't be shy.
>>
>>
> Pervert.
> This is a bicycling newsgroup.

Last fuck????

On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 11:11 am, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>>>>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>>>>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
>>>>> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
>>
>>>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>>
>>>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset of
>>>> motoring rules and that there is an additional section with cycling
>>>> specific items.
>>
>>> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited email
>>> questions should be read as "expected to obey"?
>>
>> No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.
>
> No-one is talking about the existence or non-existence of legal
> requirements. Those "rules" (the law) exist.
>
> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the effect: "when
> would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?".
>
> My observation is that this should be read as "when will cyclists be
> expected to obey the law?",

You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in the past.

Besides, another thread has just popped up "Two in three drivers unaware
of forthcoming changes to Highway Code, says AA"

On 17/12/21 06:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>>
>>>
>>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
>>> When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could
>>> not make it?
>>> Don't be shy.
>>>
>>>
>> Pervert.
>> This is a bicycling newsgroup.
>
> Last fuck????
>
>
You fuck hagfishes?

On 17/12/2021 12:32 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/12/2021 11:11 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to come into
>>>>>> effect next month and aimed at protecting vulnerable road users
>>>>>> prompted a number of emails from people asking, in effect, when would
>>>>>> cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?
>
>>>>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway Code.
>
>>>>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a subset
>>>>> of motoring rules and that there is an additional section with
>>>>> cycling specific items.
>
>>>> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited email
>>>> questions should be read as "expected to obey"?
>
>>> No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.
>
>> No-one is talking about the existence or non-existence of legal
>> requirements. Those "rules" (the law) exist.
>
>> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the effect: "when
>> would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?".
>> My observation is that this should be read as "when will cyclists be
>> expected to obey the law?",
>
> You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in the past.

There you go again. You will do and say *anything* rather than admit
and/or address the very obvious law-breaking of the majority of
fairy-cyclists.

My construction of the question asked by that quoted commentator is the
only one which makes sense.

We all already know that most traffic law applies to fairy-cyclists. The
issue is not whether fairy-cyclists are subject to law. It's whether
they will ever obey the law.

> Besides, another thread has just popped up "Two in three drivers unaware
> of forthcoming changes to Highway Code, says AA"

What about it?

When the authorities can be bothered to publicise changes in the Highway
Code - there have not been any changes in the law, not even announced
here - it can be expected that more people will be aware of them.

As things stand, you might as well ask what knowledge the average DIYer
has of the last revision to the IEE Regulations. They have been
publicised just as much as the "new" Highway Code has. That is, not at all.

Peter Keller wrote:
> On 17/12/21 06:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
>>>> When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could
>>>> not make it?
>>>> Don't be shy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Pervert.
>>> This is a bicycling newsgroup.
>>
>> Last fuck????
>>
>>
> You fuck hagfishes?

I'll answer your question. I'd fuck any white female that had a pulse. I
would not fuck a nigger bitch.
Care to answer my question, ya little faggot?

On 17/12/2021 12:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 12:32 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2021 11:11 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to
>>>>>>> come into effect next month and aimed at protecting
>>>>>>> vulnerable road users prompted a number of emails from
>>>>>>> people asking, in effect, when would cyclists be subject
>>>>>>> to similar rules as motorists?
>>
>>>>>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway
>>>>>> Code.
>>
>>>>>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a
>>>>>> subset of motoring rules and that there is an additional
>>>>>> section with cycling specific items.
>>
>>>>> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited
>>>>> email questions should be read as "expected to obey"?
>>
>>>> No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.
>>
>>> No-one is talking about the existence or non-existence of legal
>>> requirements. Those "rules" (the law) exist.
>>
>>> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the effect:
>>> "when would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?".
>>> My observation is that this should be read as "when will cyclists
>>> be expected to obey the law?",
>>
>> You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in the
>> past.
>
> There you go again. You will do and say *anything* rather than admit
> and/or address the very obvious law-breaking of the majority of
> cyclists.

You have your fetish.

> My construction of the question asked by that quoted commentator is
> the only one which makes sense.

Face value is the only one that makes sense.

> We all already know that most traffic law applies to cyclists.
> The issue is not whether cyclists are subject to law. It's
> whether they will ever obey the law.
>
>> Besides, another thread has just popped up "Two in three drivers
>> unaware of forthcoming changes to Highway Code, says AA"
>
> What about it?

Well, if two thirds don't know, a proportion of those will be
disinterested in any version of it since taking their test. My mother
stopped driving when she was 90. She never passed a UK test and I would
wager that she never looked at a copy.

> When the authorities can be bothered to publicise changes in the
> Highway Code - there have not been any changes in the law, not even
> announced here - it can be expected that more people will be aware of
> them.

In any other activity people are expected to remain current.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:14:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> In any other activity people are expected to remain current.

Indeed - ignorance of the law is no excuse.

On 17/12/2021 02:14 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 12:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 12:32 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 15/12/2021 11:11 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 14/12/2021 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/12/2021 03:50 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/12/2021 15:20, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Our recent article on changes to the Highway Code due to
>>>>>>>> come into effect next month and aimed at protecting
>>>>>>>> vulnerable road users prompted a number of emails from
>>>>>>>> people asking, in effect, when would cyclists be subject
>>>>>>>> to similar rules as motorists?
>>>
>>>>>>> Evidence that people don't bother to read the Highway
>>>>>>> Code.
>>>
>>>>>>> If they did they would find that cyclists are subject to a
>>>>>>> subset of motoring rules and that there is an additional
>>>>>>> section with cycling specific items.
>>>
>>>>>> Do you not think that the phrase "subject to" in the cited
>>>>>> email questions should be read as "expected to obey"?
>>>
>>>>> No. Any expectation is implied by the existence of rules.
>>>
>>>> No-one is talking about the existence or non-existence of legal
>>>> requirements. Those "rules" (the law) exist.
>>>
>>>> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the effect:
>>>> "when would cyclists be subject to similar rules as motorists?". My
>>>> observation is that this should be read as "when will cyclists
>>>> be expected to obey the law?",
>>>
>>> You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in the
>>> past.
>>
>> There you go again. You will do and say *anything* rather than admit
>> and/or address the very obvious law-breaking of the majority of cyclists.
>
> You have your fetish.
>
>> My construction of the question asked by that quoted commentator is
>> the only one which makes sense.
>
> Face value is the only one that makes sense.

I am taking it at face value.

>> We all already know that most traffic law applies to cyclists.
>> The issue is not whether cyclists are subject to law. It's
>> whether they will ever obey the law.
>>
>>> Besides, another thread has just popped up "Two in three drivers
>>> unaware of forthcoming changes to Highway Code, says AA"
>>
>> What about it?
>
> Well, if two thirds don't know, a proportion of those will be
> disinterested in any version of it since taking their test. My mother
> stopped driving when she was 90. She never passed a UK test and I would
> wager that she never looked at a copy.

....and?

>> When the authorities can be bothered to publicise changes in the
>> Highway Code - there have not been any changes in the law, not even
>> announced here - it can be expected that more people will be aware of
>> them.
>
> In any other activity people are expected to remain current.

Reading the Highway Code is not a legal requirement.

Staying off the footway and stopping at red traffic light on your
fairy-cycle ARE legal requirements.

See the difference?

On 17/12/2021 02:18 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:14:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> In any other activity people are expected to remain current.
>
> Indeed - ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The Highway Code is NOT the law.

But some people are too stupid to know that.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:14:46 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> In any other activity people are expected to remain current.

That doesn't explain these though.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space

On 18/12/21 02:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On 17/12/21 06:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole cyclists
>>>>> When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck and could
>>>>> not make it?
>>>>> Don't be shy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Pervert.
>>>> This is a bicycling newsgroup.
>>>
>>> Last fuck????
>>>
>>>
>> You fuck hagfishes?
>
>
> I'll answer your question. I'd fuck any white female that had a pulse. I
> would not fuck a nigger bitch.
> Care to answer my question, ya little faggot?
>
>
Thanks greatly for that excellent compliment coming from YOU. Now
ejaculate to me the further honour of snail-skulled little rabbit. That
would be really great.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a little faggot by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

Peter Keller wrote:
> On 18/12/21 02:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 17/12/21 06:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole
>>>>>> cyclists When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck
>>>>>> and could not make it?
>>>>>> Don't be shy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Pervert.
>>>>> This is a bicycling newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> Last fuck????
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You fuck hagfishes?
>>
>>
>> I'll answer your question. I'd fuck any white female that had a
>> pulse. I would not fuck a nigger bitch.
>> Care to answer my question, ya little faggot?
>>
>>
> Thanks greatly for that excellent compliment coming from YOU. Now
> ejaculate to me the further honour of snail-skulled little rabbit.
> That would be really great.
>
> It really is a very great compliment to be called a little faggot by
> YOU. Especially by YOU.
> And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
> After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
> viable means of transport.
> And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
> fuckwitted pits of humanity.
> And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
> compliment.
> We must be doing something right.

No real answer as expected.
Just your usual copy and paste boring shit.
Try fucking a woman,driving a car, getting a job and becoming a man.

On 17/12/2021 14:23, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/12/2021 02:14 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 12:03, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2021 12:32 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the
>>>>> effect: "when would cyclists be subject to similar rules as
>>>>> motorists?". My observation is that this should be read as
>>>>> "when will cyclists be expected to obey the law?",
>>>>
>>>> You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in
>>>> the past.
>>>
>>> There you go again. You will do and say *anything* rather than
>>> admit and/or address the very obvious law-breaking of the
>>> majority of cyclists.
>>
>> You have your fetish.
>>
>>> My construction of the question asked by that quoted commentator
>>> is the only one which makes sense.
>>
>> Face value is the only one that makes sense.
>
> I am taking it at face value.

All bicycle users are subject to applicable laws. A few don't obey them.
See the difference?

On 18/12/2021 11:34 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 17/12/2021 14:23, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 02:14 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2021 12:03, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2021 12:32 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 15/12/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The correspondent is quoted as asking something to the
>>>>>> effect: "when would fairy-cyclists be subject to similar rules as
>>>>>> motorists?". My observation is that this should be read as
>>>>>> "when will cfairy-yclists be expected to obey the law?",
>>>>>
>>>>> You're doing your telepathy act again. It's never worked in
>>>>> the past.
>>>>
>>>> There you go again. You will do and say *anything* rather than
>>>> admit and/or address the very obvious law-breaking of the
>>>> majority of fairy-cyclists.
>>>
>>> You have your fetish.
>>>
>>>> My construction of the question asked by that quoted commentator
>>>> is the only one which makes sense.
>>>
>>> Face value is the only one that makes sense.
>>
>> I am taking it at face value.
>
> All fairy-cycle users are subject to applicable laws. A few don't obey them.
> See the difference?

The difference between that and reality is that you incorrectly inserted
the word "don't".

Delete that and your post becomes credible:

"All fairy-cycle users are subject to applicable laws. A few obey them."

On 18/12/21 23:14, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Peter Keller wrote:
>> On 18/12/21 02:11, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/21 06:02, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/12/21 02:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-changes-what-about-rules-cyclists-288655
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 99.99% of people do not give a flying fuck about shithole
>>>>>>> cyclists When is the last and only time you tried to have a fuck
>>>>>>> and could not make it?
>>>>>>> Don't be shy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pervert.
>>>>>> This is a bicycling newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last fuck????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You fuck hagfishes?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll answer your question. I'd fuck any white female that had a
>>> pulse. I would not fuck a nigger bitch.
>>> Care to answer my question, ya little faggot?
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks greatly for that excellent compliment coming from YOU. Now
>> ejaculate to me the further honour of snail-skulled little rabbit.
>> That would be really great.
>>
>> It really is a very great compliment to be called a little faggot by
>> YOU. Especially by YOU.
>> And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
>> After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
>> viable means of transport.
>> And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
>> fuckwitted pits of humanity.
>> And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
>> compliment.
>> We must be doing something right.
>
> No real answer as expected.
> Just your usual copy and paste boring shit.
> Try fucking a woman,driving a car, getting a job and becoming a man.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks greatly for that EXCELLENT compliment coming from you.
Please label me a bloody woofter sod?
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.