marko35s

So they judge other people and form an opinion, much like you just did?

So what if words were exchanged?

They allude to some mysterious incident that kick-started this but not a single one of them has actually provided anything meaningful nor have they provided anything that resembles a reason. Lots of "ooh but you didn't see what I did, and I was there" type of comment but not once when challenged to give a full account have they bothered.Why is that?

I would be surprised if there weren't quite a few people sat in cars thinking mildly unkind thoughts as they watched that mess. For sure if I was a witness my thought process would have involved a fair amount of swearing aimed at the guys carrying out the assault.

You are mean To answer the initial question the guy is apparently not a member but they have sponsored some of the other clubs riders in the past (taken from the other, rather mammoth, thread where it's fair to say the info could be entirely accurate, a bit dubious or entirely fictional. Who knows).

Ooh I don't know about that - the admittedly small sample taken on Sunday would indicate otherwise I have to say though I do feel bad for the leader of the club if he is genuinely trying to promote cycling and uplift people he sure didn't deserve to wake up to world war three after the weekend, he was badly dropped by the people involved. We all do stupid things at some point but most of us manage to stay away from crossing the line labelled moronic but in this case they didn't just step over the line they sprinted past it at Olympian like speed.

Interesting that the article mentions that police are going to arrest another person they have identified outside of the two named by the club.

I honestly think you are misreading the intent in those posts.

He was defending his ego...

On that complete tangent are you coming back to bruise more ribs on friday?

Yep.Self defence stops when the threat ends or is terminated after which it becomes assault. There used to be a standard applied to cases where self defence was claimed called the reasonable man test (not sure if it is still used at all). The theory was simple - look at a persons actions and decide if a reasonable (or average) man would have done the same under the circumstances. In this case there is no way the actions of that group could be deemed reasonable.

Ahead? When did that happen?

Cool because I personally have never been part of an angry mob that attacked somebody.

What is your point? If you are trying to prove something you need to rethink because you are failing badly.

Because they took an absolute lashing from the public.

Who needs the A Team if you opened the door fast enough the light ripple in the air would have knocked most of the half pint heroes over.

You know what happened? Then tell it istead of posing stupid bloody questions.Oh and unfortunately for those involved the only documentary evidence and independent witnesses serve to make the cyclists look like feral idiots. That is what the general population are seeing and believing.

Did you actually think before typing any of this?Utter drivel.

As long as it doesnt turn negative.

Watt could you mean...

He was amped for sure.

Nah, he had a shocking time...

Wait until this weeks Top Gear hits our screens, from what I am told there is a huge fuss going on in the UK right now thanks to them advocating mowing down cyclists. Popular we are not right now.As an aside if I do ever have to defend myself against an angry mob I hope it is just like these idiots, average weight 60kgs, wearing cleats and barely able to walk somewhat resembling a herd of ungainly drunk deer sliding slowly across an ice covered lake.

You completely missed my point. Spectacularly.For clarity - I was questioning someone that was trying to justify the cyclists actions. I was being dismissive.

When was the last time you saw a video of a group of drivers attacking a cyclist?