Yorkshire renamed...
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Simian on 8 Apr 2010 16:47 Rob wrote: > On 06/04/2010 10:42, GungaDan wrote: > > > > My 'natural' argument? I never used the word so I guess you're > > referring to the bit where I say 'biking is by its nature more > > dangerous than driving a car'. If you don't or can't accept that I > > wish you lots of luck in your future biking career. > > > > By nature? Biking is not 'by nature' more dangerous than anything > that I can think of. Depends how you define 'biking' and any other > stuff. A pissed poor driver is far more likely to crash and die (and > take a few with them) than a good biker. What an awesome display of idiocy. No more than you'd expect from an iFanboi, I guess,
From: Champ on 9 Apr 2010 04:00 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:08:33 +0100, Rob <patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I've got nothing against additional training so long as it's optional >> but even with all the training in the world the death/serious injury >> figures for bikers will never reach parity with car drivers. Which was >> my point. >No, yes... So what is it - 'no' or 'yes'? -- Champ We declare that the splendour of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. ZX10R | Hayabusa | GPz750turbo neal at champ dot org dot uk
From: Rob on 9 Apr 2010 15:43 On 09/04/2010 09:00, Champ wrote: > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:08:33 +0100, Rob<patchoulianREMOVE(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> I've got nothing against additional training so long as it's optional >>> but even with all the training in the world the death/serious injury >>> figures for bikers will never reach parity with car drivers. Which was >>> my point. > >> No, yes... > > So what is it - 'no' or 'yes'? FYI: No, neither have I, and yes even with all the training in the world the death/serious injury >>> figures for bikers will never reach parity with car drivers. Which was >>> my point.
From: Rob on 9 Apr 2010 15:44 On 08/04/2010 21:47, Simian wrote: > Rob wrote: > >> On 06/04/2010 10:42, GungaDan wrote: >>> >>> My 'natural' argument? I never used the word so I guess you're >>> referring to the bit where I say 'biking is by its nature more >>> dangerous than driving a car'. If you don't or can't accept that I >>> wish you lots of luck in your future biking career. >>> >> >> By nature? Biking is not 'by nature' more dangerous than anything >> that I can think of. Depends how you define 'biking' and any other >> stuff. A pissed poor driver is far more likely to crash and die (and >> take a few with them) than a good biker. > > > What an awesome display of idiocy. > > No more than you'd expect from an iFanboi, I guess, > Notch above :-)
From: GungaDan on 9 Apr 2010 16:04
On Apr 9, 8:43 pm, Rob <patchoulianREM...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/04/2010 09:00, Champ wrote: > > > On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:08:33 +0100, Rob<patchoulianREM...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> I've got nothing against additional training so long as it's optional > >>> but even with all the training in the world the death/serious injury > >>> figures for bikers will never reach parity with car drivers. Which was > >>> my point. > > >> No, yes... > > > So what is it - 'no' or 'yes'? > > FYI: No, neither have I, and yes even with all the training in the world > the death/serious injury > >>> figures for bikers will never reach parity with car drivers. Which was > >>> my point. Oh, well I'm glad that's settled. |