Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> ....in our local paper between motorists and cyclists has got to stop according to columnist:
[...] Wonder if the same principles could be applied to this group - unlikely, but I live in hope.
People should pay particular attention to the penultimate paragraph of the article in question.
Simon Ward, Accent Optical Technologies (UK) Ltd., York, YO31 8SD, UK "You'd never guess the things
that I do, I've had the Devil round for tea ..."
- "60 Miles an Hour", New Order
"...why do cyclists think they can veer all over the place without using proper had signals? And
most of them don't have lights on their bikes at night either. How can they complain when most of
them don't play by the rules?"
followed by criticism of letters from
"...people making daft generalisations."
Makes you wonder, did he read this rubbish through before submitting it?
PS Off the top of my head I can't think of any "prudent" or "unavoidable" reason to ride on
must apply doubly to pedestrianised pavements. But then I've never understood people who can't
dismount at the curb and wheel the bike while using their feet in the standard perambulatory manner.
Perhaps there are spates of vandalism involving superglue and saddles. Quick-release mechanisms must
surely be available to reduce this problem, and reduce difficult on-pavement cycling to the somewhat
less dangerous pastime of waddling with a saddle and seatpost stuck to your trousers.
Am I starting a helmet-like debate? Should I keep my prudent hole closed?
... He also uses short sentences as paragraphs.
This is just plain and simple Tony Parsons.
"This book is dedicated with tenderness and respect to the blameless vulva."
lardy ninja wrote:
> Makes you wonder, did he read this rubbish through before submitting it?
I apologise to the OP for the wording of my post which referred to *he* (the author of the article)
*submitting* (to his editor) and not as it may have been misunderstood *he* (the OP) *submitting*
(to urc). On the other hand if the OP had understood perfectly well my meaning first time round then
I apologise to the OP for insulting his intelligence. In fact I apologise for this apology which
makes the rubbish(1) I was commenting on seem lucid.