Cyclist nearly wipes out Clarkson.

[Conor]

Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?

What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
and insured.



--
Conor

"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most." O.Osbourne.

 

[Call me Bob]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 01:33:24 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
>What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
>and insured.

*plonk*


"Bob"

--

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Lum]

Conor wrote:

> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.

Could have been worse, he could have wiped out Clarkson's scriptwriter.

 

[JohnB]

Conor wrote:
>
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.

Clearly sounds as if the cyclist failed.
If with testing, licencing and insurance Clarkson had been wiped out,
I'm fully with you.

John B

 

[Peter B]

"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.

Because we all know that lorry drivers who are tested, licenced and insured
never wipe out anybody.

How was it sleeping under the bridge last night?

Pete

 

[Dave]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 06:53:08 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>>
>> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
>> and insured.
>
>Because we all know that lorry drivers who are tested, licenced and insured
>never wipe out anybody.
>
>How was it sleeping under the bridge last night?
>

Troll ;-)

>Pete
>

 

[Ian]

"Conor" wrote in message
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.
>

Whilst I agree with the above, if the cyclist had succeeded it would
probably have been the biggest leap forward for general road safety in the
history of the UK.

Ian

 

[Tony W]

"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.

Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.

What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?

T

 

[Adrian]

Conor ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?

He missed?

<demands refund>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 01:33:24 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
>and insured.

Absolutely. We need to raise their skill levels to the point where he
would have succeeded and rid the planet of the wooly-haired bigot.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[PC Paul]

"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>

Anyone see that loonie Clarkson walk out into the middle of a road without
looking and nearly get taken out by a cyclist using the road legitimately?

I appreciate Top Gear entertainment as much as the average uk.rec.driver but
sometimes things get a bit one sided!

 

[Tony Raven]

Conor wrote:
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.
>

<motorist>
"What are you complaining about? I didn't hit you"
</motorist>


--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...
>
> "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> > Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
> >
> > What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> > and insured.
>
> Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
>
> What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
>
The lack of compulsory need.


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[dave]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...
>
>>"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>>>Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>>>
>>>What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
>>>and insured.
>>
>>Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
>>
>>What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
>>
>
> The lack of compulsory need.
>
>
Wow

 

[Tony W]

"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > > What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> > > and insured.
> >
> > Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
> >
> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
> >
> The lack of compulsory need.

Yes -- that complies with your prejudice.

But what REAL evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't
insured?

Many cyclists are insured through household policies, club membership or
separate insurance cover. Estimates suggests up to 20% of motorists are
not insured. Which is more dangerous -- an uninsured ****** in a car or the
same uninsured ****** on a bike?

T

 

[David Martin]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...
> >
> > "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> > > Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
> > >
> > > What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> > > and insured.
> >
> > Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
> >
> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
> >
> The lack of compulsory need.

So Clarkson steps out into the road whilst looking the other way to the
flow of traffic (anyone here remember the green cross code?) and a
cyclist who was not wearing lycra takes appropriate action and misses
him.

Big deal..

Clarkson then tries to blame the cyclist for his own failings (ie
relying on not hearing a car == it is safe to step out without looking)

...d

 

[JohnB]

Conor wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...

> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
> >
> The lack of compulsory need.

Err, Conor, you really aren't *that* thick are you?
Do you want to reassess your answer?

John B

 

[Peter]

Conor wrote:
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.

It almost happened to me the other day too. I think I was very close
to being in hospital :-o. This cyclist at uni was on the pavement
going around a blind bend, probably doing over 20mph. I saw it come
around, and I didn't know what to do. He was heading straight for me.
If I had moved, he probably would've swerved at the same time, and hit
me. So, I didn't move, and he swerved. I didn't say anything, but I
probably should've shouted at him. Staight after nearly hitting me I
saw him swerving between people, and I could hear his tyres slipping
slightly. Crazy cycling. I suppose I should be greatful that he
wasn't driving a car.

 

[Brimstone]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...
>>
>> "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>>> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>>>
>>> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested,
>>> licenced and insured.
>>
>> Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
>>
>> What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't
>> insured?
>>
> The lack of compulsory need.

Are you really suggesting that all motor vehicle drivers are therefore
properly insured?

Yet again you fail to think things through, assuming thought forms any part
of your activities.

 

[Jon Senior]

Peter wrote:
> It almost happened to me the other day too. I think I was very close
> to being in hospital :-o. This cyclist at uni was on the pavement
> going around a blind bend, probably doing over 20mph. I saw it come
> around, and I didn't know what to do. He was heading straight for me.
> If I had moved, he probably would've swerved at the same time, and hit
> me. So, I didn't move, and he swerved. I didn't say anything, but I
> probably should've shouted at him. Staight after nearly hitting me I
> saw him swerving between people, and I could hear his tyres slipping
> slightly. Crazy cycling.

Assuming that your story is accurate (20mph is probably a little high),
the guy was a twonk of the highest order but...

> I suppose I should be greatful that he wasn't driving a car.

Exactly.

Jon