Video: Cyclist gets caught behind level crossing barriers in West Sussex

Kadinkski wrote:

Its just a page of google results, literally anything* you search for will produce a page of google results.

See?

Anyway, those videos are old in comparison to the cyclist ones that are currently being released. Thank you for proving my point.

*That is called an exageration.

g.

Kadinkski wrote:

Yeah, 'never' is an exageration. Well done. Great work.

Hardly great work, it was quite simple actually.

Here's some more.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-b&dcr=0&q=car+level+cross...

Wanders off to  Google sarcastic...

Kadinkski wrote:

Such bullshit. You never see them releasing these sort of videos when it's car drivers. Yes, the cyclist is in the wrong but how about publicly shaming car drivers in the same fashion?

Nope, absolutely never.

(This was the first Google hit).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10585436/Dangerous-drivers-flout-level-crossing-rules.html

Kadinkski wrote:

Such bullshit. You never see them releasing these sort of videos when it's car drivers. Yes, the cyclist is in the wrong but how about publicly shaming car drivers in the same fashion?

Rubbish. I've seen plenty of similar videos but with cars on the TV news.

You do know this is a bike website so obviously it'll have an interest in bike videos ?

WashoutWheeler wrote:

That is a person on a bicycle NOT a cyclist! Big difference.

I've thought about this and could do with a hand understanding what the difference is. I imagine that a person on a bike would consider themselves a cyclist while mounted on said bike.

I kind of agree with you, but am interested all the same.

don simon wrote:

WashoutWheeler wrote:

That is a person on a bicycle NOT a cyclist! Big difference.

I've thought about this and could do with a hand understanding what the difference is. I imagine that a person on a bike would consider themselves a cyclist while mounted on said bike.

I kind of agree with you, but am interested all the same.

it’s a form of the ‘I am an adventurer, you are a traveller, he is a tourist’ bollocks that mutates into a form of the ‘no true Scotsman...’ argument.

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

WashoutWheeler wrote:

That is a person on a bicycle NOT a cyclist! Big difference.

I've thought about this and could do with a hand understanding what the difference is. I imagine that a person on a bike would consider themselves a cyclist while mounted on said bike.

I kind of agree with you, but am interested all the same.

it’s a form of the ‘I am an adventurer, you are a traveller, he is a tourist’ bollocks that mutates into a form of the ‘no true Scotsman...’ argument.

one lousy (but flirtatious) sheep does not a sheepshagger make?

beezus fufoon wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

don simon wrote:

WashoutWheeler wrote:

That is a person on a bicycle NOT a cyclist! Big difference.

I've thought about this and could do with a hand understanding what the difference is. I imagine that a person on a bike would consider themselves a cyclist while mounted on said bike.

I kind of agree with you, but am interested all the same.

it’s a form of the ‘I am an adventurer, you are a traveller, he is a tourist’ bollocks that mutates into a form of the ‘no true Scotsman...’ argument.

one lousy (but flirtatious) sheep does not a sheepshagger make?

Hmmmm!

wellsprop wrote:

Idiot. Trains have a tendency to be fairly fast and reasonably big and heavy. I would choose not to play chicken with them.

Cars, trucks and buses are also fast and reasonably heavy.  Nor are they constrained to a given path by rails.  And they're often driven by drivers paying less attention than a train driver should.  But we still go out and play on the same roads as them.

Not that I would go under a train barrier but we choose our risks.  Preferably only involving ourselves and not some train driver who has no choice but to watch the train plough into you.