Random Acts of Evil
Mr Twisty Cheeky asks: As a contrast to last week's question - Has anyone ever been evil to you, out of the blue, for no reason? Have you ever been total twuntcake against all logic?
( , Thu 16 Feb 2012, 18:49)
Mr Twisty Cheeky asks: As a contrast to last week's question - Has anyone ever been evil to you, out of the blue, for no reason? Have you ever been total twuntcake against all logic?
( , Thu 16 Feb 2012, 18:49)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
eh you wha?
what part of he was in the middle of the road (a FUCKING DUAL CARRIAGEWAY) do you not understand? going 30mph slower than every other road user, being a danger to himself and everyone around him
if he'd left room to get around him it would have been fine, instead all traffic in that lane slowed drastically and other arseholes swerved out making it unsafe to pass. if he hadn't been doing it at rush hour i might have given the cycle helmeted prick some credit
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:25, 1 reply)
what part of he was in the middle of the road (a FUCKING DUAL CARRIAGEWAY) do you not understand? going 30mph slower than every other road user, being a danger to himself and everyone around him
if he'd left room to get around him it would have been fine, instead all traffic in that lane slowed drastically and other arseholes swerved out making it unsafe to pass. if he hadn't been doing it at rush hour i might have given the cycle helmeted prick some credit
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:25, 1 reply)
Your real problem is this
"my mrs tried to get round him but a massive truck came flying round the corner,"
166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
a corner or bend
a hump bridge
the brow of a hill
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:01, closed)
no the problem was that the cyclist was in the middle of the road
causing the truck to have to swing out as it wouldn't have been able to stop in time
you stupid lycra wearing shitcunt
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:04, closed)
causing the truck to have to swing out as it wouldn't have been able to stop in time
you stupid lycra wearing shitcunt
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:04, closed)
^What fat boy said^
If you're going to cycle on the dual carriageway, you'd better be on the left hand side, and prepared to resemble mince at some point, if you're not going to use the cycle lane.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:11, closed)
If you're going to cycle on the dual carriageway, you'd better be on the left hand side, and prepared to resemble mince at some point, if you're not going to use the cycle lane.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:11, closed)
All cyclist mince.
Because cycling makes you gay.
And, if anyone doubts this, I've carried out extensive research based on my own prejudices and also that of others who think men in coloured lycra are a bit suspect.
Science.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:13, closed)
Because cycling makes you gay.
And, if anyone doubts this, I've carried out extensive research based on my own prejudices and also that of others who think men in coloured lycra are a bit suspect.
Science.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:13, closed)
Because cycle lanes are compulsory? Try reading the Highway Code.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:36, closed)
You aren't being very clear here. If you were on a dual carriage way and the danger was a head on collision one or other of you must have broken the law by crossing the central reservation so it would be the fault of whoever did that.
If it was the truck moving from the nearside lane to the outside lane to pass the cyclist putting you in danger then it's the truck drivers fault for not leaving sufficient room to brake safely / not checking his mirrors before manoeuvring.
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:33, closed)
you're thick i'm not responding to you anymore
i hope you fall under a truck and get hit by a bus
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:24, closed)
i hope you fall under a truck and get hit by a bus
( , Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:24, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread