- This topic has 21 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
SammyG wrote:Don’t want to be
SammyG wrote:Don’t want to be undertaken? Stay in the inside lane. And if as he says he was actually going right at the lights, then i’m presuming he is indicating, which would allow the police driver to see undertaking would be safe.
Undertaking would be safe. If the driver did not cut right across again. If he’d left room, there would have been no issue.
Its the lack of room he left the cyclist and manner he cut across thats the problem rather than the undertaking.
it’s the manner of the
it’s the manner of the undertaking, rather than the fact of it, that’s at fault
Don’t want to be undertaken?
Don’t want to be undertaken? Stay in the inside lane. And if as he says he was actually going right at the lights, then i’m presuming he is indicating, which would allow the police driver to see undertaking would be safe.
Ha class !
The reporter from
Ha class !
The reporter from the rag that posted the article obviously doesn’t like the Police.
The Police vehicle appeared from nowhere ? of course it did it came from behind and when that happens you never see them until they go past regardless of what side they pass you on !
The sound on my laptop isn’t working so i cant comment on what was said between them.
The cyclist should consult
The cyclist should consult with The Cycling Lawyer. Don’t let this arrogant scumbag get away with it.
Arrogant prick
Arrogant prick