EastAnglianTrucker:
chester:
It appears EastAnglianTrucker has edited the origanal opening post which he worte yesterday 29hrs from the original post, I think his agrument is getting mighty flawed.
I’m not arguing with you. It was my original post and I was in a position to see the facts of the specific situation I wrote about. You and your friend AHT were not.
Neither of you had any knowledge of the state of the cycle track, nor of the competency of the cyclist. If you had bothered to read the OP without your blinkers on, you would and should, have concluded that this was far from some sort of super cyclist, but one who preferred to put his life in danger despite the fact there was a perfectly acceptable, and considerably safer alternative right beside him.
These are the facts. They are inarguable.
“”“”““Neither of you had any knowledge of the state of the cycle track, nor of the competency of the cyclist””“”“”“”“”
I have asked politely the last few days!!!, I now plead for you to read myself and AHTs posts… yes we know nothing of the cyclist in the original post, all we have done is try to explain why a cyclist may not have been on that cycle path.
Which in you original post, question why he was not on the cycle path?