The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Big_Red » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:25 pm

Summernight wrote:I was going to comment on his purple polka dot top. Is that the 'King of the Red Light Running' jersey? Or the 'King of the Push in Front' jersey? Also known as a Knob. :wink:


+1 to that! Excellent summation I thought, couldn't have said better myself
Image
User avatar
Big_Red
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:00 pm
Location: Brisbane East

by BNA » Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:53 pm

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Ranga Tang » Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:53 pm

Riding along the cycle way (Fairy Meadow) today with the two kids (5 and 9), both in front, me taking rearguard position to look for other cyclists, to make sure they kids don't impede too many people's progress.

Here comes Lycra clad toss bag from behind doing at least 40kph, blazes past me, just clipping my arm and the almost drafting my daughter off her bike. No warning.

Called out to the tosser, doesn't stop but does the same to the next group way up.

I'm just hate these people. He's probably lucky I had the kids with me otherwise we would have had a spoke removal party with his bike.

Why,why,why.....you...yes you....you know who you are.....
Ranga Tang
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:11 pm

Oooo. I've never been to a spoke removal party. Sounds like fun. :lol:
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby biker jk » Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:50 pm

Ranga Tang wrote:Riding along the cycle way (Fairy Meadow) today with the two kids (5 and 9), both in front, me taking rearguard position to look for other cyclists, to make sure they kids don't impede too many people's progress.

Here comes Lycra clad toss bag from behind doing at least 40kph, blazes past me, just clipping my arm and the almost drafting my daughter off her bike. No warning.

Called out to the tosser, doesn't stop but does the same to the next group way up.

I'm just hate these people. He's probably lucky I had the kids with me otherwise we would have had a spoke removal party with his bike.

Why,why,why.....you...yes you....you know who you are.....


What does wearing Lycra have to do with stupid behaviour on a bike? I see plenty of stupid riding by non-Lycra wearing cyclists. Please drop the stereotypes.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Ranga Tang » Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Just calling it as it was. If it was a bogan wearing trackies, I would have wrote that too.

Funnily enough, all the cyclists that hammered past us (but not as close as him), were in fact clad in similar attire.

Everyone else who approached us from behind in shorts/trackies etc, either slowed down or yelled out they were coming through.

Just sayin' ........

Summernight wrote:Oooo. I've never been to a spoke removal party. Sounds like fun. :lol:


Yeah. Had to go to one of those once when I was on rollerblades and was body slammed from behind. I rode/skated home..... not a story proud of though, long, long time ago
Ranga Tang
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Walst » Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:51 pm

Crossing the Mounts Bay Rd freeway entry point the other day and there's usually an unspoken understanding between cars and cyclists that cars halt from time to time and let us get over the 2 lane exit to the shared footpath on the other side. It's usually quite a civil affair. Anyway, some turkey ahead of me on his MTB instead of waiting for the cars to stop just decides to go forcing them to brake suddenly. Seemed pretty proud of himself too as he weaved through the traffic and then did a snakey skid or whatever their called (help me out here) once he got to the other side. Got a few honks for his troubles. Just another instance of hero cyclists not helping the cause.
Walst
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 12:06 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:05 pm

Summernight wrote:To each their own, Myrtone. Personally I would have said that if the guy is colour blind or deficient in some respect then he should take MORE cues from the 10 cyclists in front of him who were stopping for the light. There is usually a reason why a bunch of sheeples (or in this case independently minded cyclists :wink: ) are stopping. Not being a professional is never an excuse for a car and nor should it be for a cyclist.


You cannot rationally base your decisions on those of a group independently minded road users, what if you are in the Northern Territory and 3000 vehicles (some in front of you and some beside you) run a red light, can the police rationally accept that excuse. You and all other road users need to base any evasie action you take at a given intersection on the rules that apply there and the signs signals and markings there. I never said that being an amateuir driver is an excuse (per se). The point is that proffesional drivers need to pass a lot more and stricter tests, are because of that, and the stricter vision and medical standards they must meet, they are less likely to make such mistakes. Also if a proffesional driver, even a taxi driver or limosene chauffer brakes a road rule like the one you menition, than the consequences are much bigger (such as getting into trouble with your employer or even your employer being charged with not ensuring that you follow the rules) that if they were driving on a private class of license, and note vehicles licenced to carry up 15 passengers may be driven on a private class of licence provided that use is not commerical and the passengers are not paying for the ride (directly or indirectly).

Summernight wrote:And some people are just plain stupid, even if they are intelligent in other aspects.


More (politically) correctly, peolpe vary in the specific areas in which they are gifted.

Summernight wrote:Until the law is changed, running reds is illegal, no matter what you think of it and when people run them they are making a conscious choice to do so. If someone cannot read the cues of traffic or cannot see the colour of the lights then they really shouldn't be riding/driving or whatever without serious training to mitigate the problem (if possible).


If you let people ride/drive, the rules and tools need to be suit their abilities, no license is required to ride a bike so cyclists cannot rationally be requried to pass colour vision tests*, or any other tests, therefore traffic lights should requrie no colour vision to understand. Have you ever noticed that the traffic lights are always stacked in the same order*&? Here are some ideas, bicycle only traffic signals often have biycle logos embossed on the lens, one idea would be to make the red one upside-down, another would be a non-illumintaed bicycle logo on a red illuminated background.

*Note that road users are also not required to pass a stereopsis/depth perecption test, and the minimum visual actuity (at least for driving on a pritave class of licence) is only 20/40 in at least one eye, the minimum visual field for driving a private vehicle is only 120 degrees.
**Colourlight railway signals (apart from searchlights) also tend to be stacked in the same order as each other, and opposite to road traffic signals, even though train drivers have their colour vision checked periodically. I believe that train drivers are also requried to have vision in two eyes, and the minimum visual acutiy and visual field requirements are sticter than even for truck licenses. Train drivers have have good memories. They have to not only know every signal aspect but must have full route knowledge, and locations so as you know where the next signal or stopping location is, even in thick fog or rain. Can anyone here spot a pattern as to the aspects in which the requriments for train drivers are sticter that for those driving road vehicles, especially for private use?
Last edited by Myrtone on Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Percrime » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:50 pm

Blinks.
Curses forum rules forbidding personal attacks.
Curses inability to be spelling, grammar or punctuation nazi.
Curses unwillingness to make the effort to point out incomprehensibility of previous post.
As an ex professional driver and motorcyclist curses unwillingness to defend once relevant professional standards.

Sigh.

The only response I can make.. is "sure.. ignore all those around you who have stopped and press on. The next generation will just learn to cope without your independent and revolutionary genes."
Percrime
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BigBadWOLF » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:13 pm

myrtone are you serious. all i said was some idiot (which they are for not riding in a safe manner) ran a red and was riding in a unsafe manner. As for your rant on color of lights the said light was on a dedicated cycleway and was a cyclist shaped light.

if you spend that much time arguing about running a red i would hate to cycle near you
Kris..
Trek 7.3 - Daily Commute (Wolli Creek - City)
Image
BigBadWOLF
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Wolli Creek, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:40 pm

Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith. Isn't it best to assume that the other road users care as much as anyone else about behaving unharmfully? I saw no claim that the light was cyclist shaped. I'm not disputing that they were riding in a harmful manner, but it's not an excuse to caim they are "stupid." Please assume good faith, you may find it hard to accept, becasue what I'm telling you strikes you as counter-intuative. And you're in New South Wales so you're unlikely to cycle near me anyway.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby bychosis » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:14 am

Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith. Isn't it best to assume that the other road users care as much as anyone else about behaving unharmfully? I saw no claim that the light was cyclist shaped. I'm not disputing that they were riding in a harmful manner, but it's not an excuse to caim they are "stupid." Please assume good faith, you may find it hard to accept, becasue what I'm telling you strikes you as counter-intuative. And you're in New South Wales so you're unlikely to cycle near me anyway.


Assumeing good faith... This rider still definately did a stupid thing. Some might say there are no stupid people only stupid actions.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby twizzle » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:49 am

twizzle wrote:This thread is for posts about observed incidents and discussions of those incidents. Going off-topic to discuss things such as the unfairness of red lights, bicycle helmets or "rights" should be carried out elsewhere.


There is a subtle purpose to this thread - stress relief. I do not wish to see any more stress generation via trolling.

Myrtone - a red light is a red light, take your discussion elsewhere.

Sent from my iThingy...
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:46 am

bychosis wrote:Assumeing good faith... This rider still definately did a stupid thing. Some might say there are no stupid people only stupid actions.


Yes assuming good faith. That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid." Have you ever noticed that it is a lot more common for pedestrians to ignore the pedestrian light, and someone implicitly suggested that they are breaking that rule becasue it is inappropriate. I'm not trying to stress people out, one will likely be less stressed out if one assumes good faith if one is polite to other road users.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:03 am

I'm still stuck on the purple polka dot jersey... I want a picture. :wink:

I had a dumb cyclist today - he was wearing flannel (make of that what you will) and did the usual "I'm allowed to turn left on the red" and came from behind me and did so (I was also indicating to turn left but I stop for the lights). I catch up to him at another set of pedestrian lights on a different road (outside the Old Treasury on MacArthur St for those playing at home in Melbourne) and he promptly runs that red (with a cop car right there and he went around another cyclist who stopped for that red too) and then further up on the intersection with Spring St does a u-turn through traffic to get onto the footpath near Parliament.

I mean, if you're going to run reds, would you do it right beside a cop car?

P.S. I don't expect an answer or a discussion/debate of my question...
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:25 pm

Myrtone wrote: That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid."


So you don't think a cyclist passing a group of cyclists already stopped at at a red light, to run the red and almost hit a pedestrian is neither an idiot or stupid. And wearing a purple polka dot jersey.

Here are some synonyms for "stupid":
brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, laughable, loser ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

This cyclist was [insert chosen synonym].
redned
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby biker jk » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:58 pm

redned wrote:
Myrtone wrote: That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid."


So you don't think a cyclist passing a group of cyclists already stopped at at a red light, to run the red and almost hit a pedestrian is neither an idiot or stupid. And wearing a purple polka dot jersey.

Here are some synonyms for "stupid":
brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, laughable, loser ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

This cyclist was [insert chosen synonym].


I wouldn't waste your time rednet since Myrtone is either a troll or is using a random sentence generator.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby London Boy » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:51 pm

Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.

Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.

Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:18 pm

London Boy wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.

Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.

Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.

I've heard of concept of assuming good faith. It works.

Until it doesn't, and then you're either in hospital or a pine box.

I'd rather not put my family through that again.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:16 pm

redned wrote:
Myrtone wrote: That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid."


So you don't think a cyclist passing a group of cyclists already stopped at at a red light, to run the red and almost hit a pedestrian is neither an idiot or stupid. And wearing a purple polka dot jersey.


What their clothing go to do with their behaviour? Do you seriously think that someone who runs and red and almost hits a pedestrian is either less intelligent (which "stupid" implies) or an "idiot," itself a pejorative term. Maybe that person did so by accident and didn't realise they nearly hit a pedestrian. They may not even understand why a group of cyclists have stopped, remember that other people including other road user may have quite conterintuatively different kinds of thoughts from what you have.

redned wrote:Here are some synonyms for "stupid":
brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, laughable, loser ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless

This cyclist was [insert chosen synonym].


Most of those terms are not synonyms and some do not imply bad faith or lack of intelligence, such as ill-advised, mindless, senseless, shortsighted and unthinking. Yes, the cyclist was acting senseless and not according to the (official) rules. To say that the cyclist was [insert "stupid" or chosen synonym] is (like) making the person and their behaviour into one, it's not like a person with a given hair and skin colour combination. They might act sensibly and according to the rules in most places most of the time and still have some problems, and I'm not sure that it's best to assume that the cyclist has no tendency to obsereve the rules. Once again, it is best to assume that other road users care at least as much as you about not causing harm.

London Boy wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.

Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.

Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.


What's actually "too dangerous" is assuming that they will always act sensibly and according to the rules, such as stepping out onto a crosswalk of zebra crossing and assuming that motor traffic will stop, to me it feels more natural to glance at the driver and make sure they see me. I think the assumption you suggest is a recipie for road rage rather than a key to staying alive, the actual key to staying alive (and able bodied) is being prepared for no-less-vunerable road users not observing the rules. Yelling or sounding the horn at other road users can be creepy and frustrating. Even if other road users are not acting sensibly and according to the rules, it is very unlikely they are acting in bad faith (which is what terms like "idiot" imply), such as intending harm, at least if they are sober and without road rage.

trailgumby wrote:
London Boy wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.

Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.

Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.

I've heard of concept of assuming good faith. It works.

Until it doesn't, and then you're either in hospital or a pine box.

I'd rather not put my family through that again.


I don't know what a pine box is supposed to mean. If you're number one responsibility on the road is to avoid harm, than please assume that other road users care as much as you about avoiding the same thing, an that acting improperly is an honest mistake.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby DavidS » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:41 pm

Summernight wrote:I mean, if you're going to run reds, would you do it right beside a cop car?


Because your chances of actually being booked still appear to be vanishingly thin.

Myrtone, I have no idea where you are coming from. If someone passes a pile of traffic stopped at red a traffic light and almost takes out a pedestrian how do you propose we describe them and their behaviour? I would think stupid is fairly reasonable, incredibly selfish is another term which comes to mind. And from this example of behaviour you propose we assume good faith?? We see bad faith behaviour and you tell us to assume the opposite. Only one word for that: illogical. If I assumed good faith behaviour on the part of car drivers I'd likely be in a pine box already.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:44 pm

myrtone wrote:
trailgumby wrote:I've heard of concept of assuming good faith. It works.

Until it doesn't, and then you're either in hospital or a pine box.

I'd rather not put my family through that again.


I don't know what a pine box is supposed to mean. If you're number one responsibility on the road is to avoid harm, than please assume that other road users care as much as you about avoiding the same thing, an that acting improperly is an honest mistake.

You're either very inexperienced and/or naive, or not very bright.

Why the HELL would I assume that? :shock: :lol:

While you are right that MOST don't want to hit you, I can tell you from intimate personal experience that a very small percentage of drivers out there don't see us as human, and feel appointed by whatever sets their moral compass to teach cyclists "a lesson".

Sooner or later you *will* encounter one of them. And it only takes one.

It is simply a matter of numbers and time on the bike. I hope when your family comes to take you home from the hospital afterwards, they will not need to carry you in a pine box.

Image

Personally, I think I'll live longer if I assume the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised, rather than assuming people will always care for me as they do themselves, and finding out the hard way that they frequently don't.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:53 pm

That small percentage of road users you mentioned may either be intoxicated and/or suffer from road rage, as I actually suggested if you read carefully, that most don't want to hit you is the key. If they don't see you as animate, let alone human, they are very likely to be impaired drivers. How is assuming that they don't want to hit you (as opposing to assuming that they'll give way when required to you and stop and red lights) dangerous? Allowing for those acting impropely while assuming that even irrational actors don't want to hit you is the safest option of all. I don't think I have ever encountred a single motorist that is evidently acting in bad faith.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:13 pm

Myrtone wrote:I don't think I have ever encountred a single motorist that is evidently acting in bad faith.

Wish I could say the same.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22300

That kind of event tends to limit your capacity for making sunny assumptions about other people.
Last edited by trailgumby on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BandedRail » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm

Myrtone wrote:
Once again, it is best to assume that other road users care at least as much as you about not causing harm.



That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.
User avatar
BandedRail
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Bayswater, Perth WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:22 pm

BandedRail wrote:Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.


Yep. ^^^ What he said.

The unfortunate reality is that we are swimming with sharks. Not all the fish we swim with are sharks. But it's best not to be shark bait.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gunlock



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit