Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Those damn cyclists again!

1…1920222425…43

Comments

  • #632
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No you just don't like free radical thought if it doesn't agree with your thoughts. I just point out relevant motor law, like checking behind BEFORE changing lanes etc.

    "Free radical thought", nah I live in reality...


  • #633
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    blacklilly wrote: »
    Also I must add, I was witness to an horrific accident a few years ago which resulted in a cyclist being severly brain damaged and paralysed. I witnessed the whole thing and was at the scene with this cyclists trying to help before emergency services arrived.
    This cyclists was wearing every possible protection possible yet they did something stupid that resulted in the accident, it was 100% the cyclists fault.

    Every road user must take responsibility and unfortuantely we can only count on ourselves to be safe because there will always be people who take silly chances.

    'Lucky' for them a trained judge / barrister was on the scene, saw the totality of the event and was able to apportion responsibility so quickly :rolleyes:

    As for your last line - considering so much has been written about the RotR, how come there is a distinct ignorance of the provisions that discuss respecting other road users, particularly the bit that (directed at drivers) says
    The vehicle does not have greater right-of-way than any other road user, so, for safety reasons, you should drive defensively. This means expecting the
    unexpected and making way for other road users when necessary.............

    ....To make sure all road users are safe, be aware of your responsibilities towards:
    • pedestrians, children, older people, people with disabilities and
    • wheelchair users,
    • cyclists and motorcyclists, and
    • any animal traffic on the road.
    • This helps drivers to become safer and more socially responsible, not only tothemselves, but to their families and other road users.
    Never put a cyclist or motorcyclist at risk and know your duty to be aware of
    them     [my emphasis added]. They are especially vulnerable if there is a crash.

    In particular, watch for cyclists and motorcyclists:
    • at junctions,
    • where cycle tracks merge with roads,
    • when you change lanes
    • when opening your door to get out of a vehicle,
    • when stopping and turning, especially when making a left turn, and
    • when reversing.

    The best way to take care near cyclists and motorcyclists is to use your mirrors and recheck blind spots.

    Driver ignorance of the RotR in Ireland is really stunning sometimes......


  • #634
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    "Free radical thought", nah I live in reality...

    Good for you, well when the reality of, "if something costs something, it has to be paid for" sinks in, do let us know.


  • #635
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Just about every time I drive the M1 I always see at least one motorcyclist go between vehicles to overtake - cars travelling in excess of 100 km/hr and these idiots go between them??

    M50 on a daily basis. And you have those then who use the cycle lanes along the canals when traffic is very heavy.

    But I'm sensible enough to know not all motorcyclists are some sort of Borg hivemind.


  • #636
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Jawgap wrote: »
    'Lucky' for them a trained judge / barrister was on the scene, saw the totality of the event and was able to apportion responsibility so quickly :rolleyes:
    Seeing as the poster outlined that the incident was a couple of years ago, how do you know that it hasn't already been to court and the cyclist was 100% to blame for the collision?


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    "Free radical thought", nah I live in reality...


    Does spook work for the revenue? Definitely got a tax fetish going on there.


  • #638
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    cournioni wrote: »
    As opposed to a cyclist standing on the bar knocking over drinks I presume.

    Nope......

    Cyclist party = Goldsprints baby!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfWAouhnHrk

    blacklilly wrote: »
    This provides zero detail on the correlation of driver error/cyclist error in respect of accidents involving cyclists.
    We are taking about cyclists here. You'd have to be living under a stone for the past 10 years not to reailse that speed is one of the main reason for fatal road collisions.
    I'd liek to know the % of cyclists error in respect to fatal accidents involving cyclists

    Well, I'm sure as an avid student of road safety you're already familiar with the Road Collisions Database - so it should be easy for you to answer your own question......


  • #639
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    cournioni wrote: »
    Seeing as the poster outlined that the incident was a couple of years ago, how do you know that it hasn't already been to court and the cyclist was 100% to blame for the collision?

    Interesting point - given the nature of the incident described I'd be surprised if there wasn't media coverage of the collision and / or the subsequent court case?

    Unless it was settled out of court - which would seem surprising given the cyclist apparently......
    blacklilly wrote: »

    ........did something stupid that resulted in the accident, it was 100% the cyclists fault.

    .......

    Would that be settled out of court? Maybe the cyclist didn't sue ;)

    The database of judgments can be found here -> http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/Webpages/HomePage?OpenDocument&l=en&p=055

    Maybe a link to the case can be provided?


  • #640
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Why's it a fictitious class, just a logical extension to increase the general taxation base of Ireland.

    Do you not like the idea of equitable taxation? I do.

    While we're on the subject of radical thoughts, why not another! Use the money raised by (let's be fair) a €52 taxation class on cycles ( yeah €1 a week would bring in circa €364000 per year, based on just the 7000 Dublin cyclists in your post, to bring in a pseudo free registration scheme for any cyclist over the age of criminal responsibilty, I dunno maybe kill another 2 birds by a 6 digit hexadecimal number on a high viz jacket, and making it compulsary to wear the registration number when not in a certified and organised race.

    As for 7000 cyclists, who cares, you want to revolt, then revolt away, as long as you obey the traffic laws in your cars it'll be legal

    As to any countries springing to mind, did any spring to mind before smoking bans?

    Jesus where do you start. Lol your hatred of cyclists is driving you barmy. I had a flavour of driving on Dublin last week for the first time in ages and it is soul destroying - I'd crack up as well if I was stuck on that day on day out, watching all those cyclists who zing by in their Lycra.

    I liked the hi-vis with the number - that's a new one.

    Anyway, we're on to the smoking ban now. The last time I checked Smoking had a direct link to cancer, whereas cycling has positive health benefits - according to the media this morning we're (well, some of us) one of the most obese countries. So taxing something that had such obvious benefits would seem a tad retrograde.

    If anything we need more to cycle - the numbers are increasing exponentially and hopefully we'll be up there with more advanced European nations.


  • #641
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,501 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    blacklilly wrote: »
    This provides zero detail on the correlation of driver error/cyclist error in respect of accidents involving cyclists.
    We are taking about cyclists here. You'd have to be living under a stone for the past 10 years not to reailse that speed is one of the main reason for fatal road collisions.
    I'd liek to know the % of cyclists error in respect to fatal accidents involving cyclists

    Actually speed is very rarely the reason for accidents. The latest RSA statistics (2012) showed that exceeding a safe speed (note this is not the same as breaking the limit - it means going faster than is safe for the conditions) was the cause of approx. 4% of two vehicle collisions. Page 24 of http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2012_Road_Collision_Facts.pdf

    It is often a contributory factor to the severity of an accident (~22% of fatalities between 1997 and 2011, and 19% of serious injuries in the same period - page 16 of the linked doc), but it's very rare that speed on its own can cause an accident.

    The argument that speed can kill is due to speed making an accident more severe, not that speed in and of itself is likely to cause an accident.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    cournioni wrote: »
    That is two incidents in the space of three days involving five cyclists breaking the rules on my 30 minute commute.
    Is that all, I guess 5 amber gamblers and 3 RLJers and a dangerous overtake at my first set of lights this morning. All motorists as I was one of only two cyclists there.
    I had another car beep me out of it for using the bus lane, he was not a PSV and should not have been there himself, just undertaking traffic for the craic I suppose.
    One cyclists jumped a red at waterloo road that I noticed, one bus pulled out into a yellow box and blocked traffic on the canal, which worked well for me as it meant I could cross easily as he stalled all traffic, and several pedestrians just wandered out into moving traffic near the baggot st bridge. Seen a huge number of cyclists jumping a red light at the canal cycle path and a moron on a dublin bike wobbling all over the road while on the phone. Followed by at least two peds stepping out into traffic looking the wrong way with headphones on and 2 cars overtaking me as I stopped on a red at a t junction. At the next left i took, two cars ran reds that crossed the green filter light I had and a MC who undertook a turning aircoach at the same junction.

    If you open your eyes you will find there is a sub group of every vehicle operator who gives a total of 0 f*cks about the law and road safety. I recalled the above from memory, not counting on the way, imagine how many I could have seen if I was looking for this type of behaviour


  • #643
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    cournioni wrote: »
    Fixed your post there.

    No you didnt fix the post.
    20 per cent, a full fifth, of respondents said that they ‘often’ use their phone for texting and calls when driving. 46 per cent said that they seldom use their phones behind the wheel while 35 per cent claimed never to do so. Sadly, that shows that there remains a significant gap between people’s acceptance of the legislation and their adherence to it.

    http://www.motorcheck.ie/blog/texting-while-driving-a-menace/

    Only 35% of drivers claim never to break one road traffic law, regarding mobile phone use, that means that 65% of drivers polled admit to breaking the law regarding mobile phone usage.

    So on just one point of road traffic law we already know 65% of motorists are not law abiding!

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #644
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Is that all, I guess 5 amber gamblers and 3 RLJers and a dangerous overtake at my first set of lights this morning. All motorists as I was one of only two cyclists there.
    I had another car beep me out of it for using the bus lane, he was not a PSV and should not have been there himself, just undertaking traffic for the craic I suppose.
    One cyclists jumped a red at waterloo road that I noticed, one bus pulled out into a yellow box and blocked traffic on the canal, which worked well for me as it meant I could cross easily as he stalled all traffic, and several pedestrians just wandered out into moving traffic near the baggot st bridge. Seen a huge number of cyclists jumping a red light at the canal cycle path and a moron on a dublin bike wobbling all over the road while on the phone. Followed by at least two peds stepping out into traffic looking the wrong way with headphones on and 2 cars overtaking me as I stopped on a red at a t junction. At the next left i took, two cars ran reds that crossed the green filter light I had and a MC who undertook a turning aircoach at the same junction.

    If you open your eyes you will find there is a sub group of every vehicle operator who gives a total of 0 f*cks about the law and road safety. I recalled the above from memory, not counting on the way, imagine how many I could have seen if I was looking for this type of behaviour
    Considering that I have met at most 8 cyclists on my commute in that time it is quite a lot. That is 62.5%.

    Are you telling me that 62.5% of motorists have broken the law in your three days?


  • #645
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    cournioni wrote: »
    Fixed your post there.
    No, you broke it. I said moaners, why would you single out law obeying motorists, I expect many people moaning own bicycles and are law breakers, especially when on foot.

    This mutually exclusive look at things is quite bizarre. Many make a presumption if someone supports/defeneds cyclists they must be one. It only really happens in cycling threads too, if someone defends say the rights of black people or women they do not automatically presume they are black or female.

    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    As with my previous post, it's not about introducing a Tax on bicyclists, it's about Taxing something so it makes too costly an option, therefore reducing the numbers involved.
    Wow, you might be one of the people I was looking for.
    rubadub wrote: »
    Some people seem to think cyclists not being taxed was some overlooked loophole or something, or that they just couldn't figure out a good way to implement it. Is there anyone who honestly cannot understand why cyclists are in amongst the wide group of non-motor tax paying motorists.
    Do you really not understand why they are in this group?

    If not I hope I don't ever meet you on the road.


  • #646
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Only 35% of drivers claim never to break one road traffic law,

    This means EXACTLY what it says. That's a pretty good percentage actually.

    You cannot take that percentage and extract the opposite form it. You can ONLY ASK THE QUESTION.

    You may ask more questions, but you can only take the answer from each question.

    A: How many don't use the phone? = 35%
    B: How many do use the phone? =


  • #647
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Good for you, well when the reality of, "if something costs something, it has to be paid for" sinks in, do let us know.

    Let me know when you get a grip... No actually.. Don't!


  • #648
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    rubadub wrote: »
    No, you broke it. I said moaners, why would you single out law obeying motorists, I expect many people moaning own bicycles and are law breakers, especially when on foot.

    This mutually exclusive look at things is quite bizarre. Many make a presumption if someone supports/defeneds cyclists they must be one. It only really happens in cycling threads too, if someone defends say the rights of black people or women they do not automatically presume they are black or female.
    I think people are more concerned with the percentage of cyclists who break the law than just here for the moan, but then that is just my opinion. You're entitled to your own. In my experience a larger percentage of cyclists are prone to break than motorists.

    Obviously you have good and bad motorists/motorcyclists/cyclists, but from my own experience, I believe that quite a large percentage of cyclists believe that the rules of the road do not apply to them. A much larger percentage than motorists anyway.


  • #649
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Red Nissan wrote: »
    This means EXACTLY what it says. That's a pretty good percentage actually.

    You cannot take that percentage and extract the opposite form it. You can ONLY ASK THE QUESTION.

    You may ask more questions, but you can only take the answer from each question.

    A: How many don't use the phone? = 35%
    B: How many do use the phone? =

    20% of drivers regularly use their mobile phones while driving
    46% Seldom use their mobile phones but do use them.
    35% dont use their phones while driving.

    So either i can say 64% percent of respondents claim to use phones while driving.

    Or I can say only 35% of drivers claim to not endanger others by using their mobile phones while driving.

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #650
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Jesus where do you start. Lol your hatred of cyclists is driving you barmy. I had a flavour of driving on Dublin last week for the first time in ages and it is soul destroying - I'd crack up as well if I was stuck on that day on day out, watching all those cyclists who zing by in their Lycra.

    Anyway, we're on to the smoking ban now. The last time I checked Smoking had a direct link to cancer, whereas cycling has positive health benefits - according to the media this morning we're (well, some of us) one of the most obese countries. So taxing something that had such obvious benefits would seem a tad retrograde.

    If anything we need more to cycle - the numbers are increasing exponentially and hopefully we'll be up there with more advanced European nations.

    Y'see, there you go again, like most cyclists in threads you autobrand anyone with a different PoV as a cyclist hater, I've said before there are types of cyclists I dislike and there are types of cyclist behaviour I abhor, now if that somehow translates in your mind to a hatred of cyclists then you are sadly mistaken, if I had an irrational hatred of cyclists do you not think that the rates of accidents involving myself and cyclists would be more than zero.

    Now back to rational thought processes, if cyclists are to be accepted as part of traffic, is it not better to help adjust other road users mindsets to think of them as traffic by ( if required ) getting them to pay taxation for the use of the road?

    Also if there were some taxation, would it not be better to ring fence that taxation and introduce a registration scheme based on a six digit hexadecimal code on a safety vest, thereby fulfilling the criteria of all other vehicular traffic that uses the roads of being recognizeable in the event of breaking road traffic laws and also making the cyclist stand out as a tax paying, law abiding road user?


  • #651
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    cournioni wrote: »
    Considering that I have met at most 8 cyclists on my commute in that time it is quite a lot. That is 62.5%.

    Are you telling me that 62.5% of motorists have broken the law in your three days?

    My count was on one day, I imagine that at least 60% of motorists broke at least one law, probably unintentionally but mainly out of stupidity or ignorance or a belief that they weren't harming anyone so its OK (presumably the same mentality of cyclists who break the law), maybe just hitting slightly over the speed limit, failing to indicate in time (indicating when you have started a turn is not indicating in time), talking on the phone or texting (no one seems to give a f*ck about this one), amber gambling and RLJing (it only seems to stop when one car decides to stop, so hard to quantify how many would have done it), parking on a corner or a double yellow line ("but I was only stopping for a second" is not a valid excuse), using the bus lane to get to their turn quicker or bunny hopping traffic, overtaking on a corner, overtaking into oncoming traffic, U turns on a solid white line, right turns where not allowed, turning down a one way street for a short cut (nearly got hit by a post van doing this yesterday).

    But if we are going down the stats route, if you have only met 8 cyclists on your commute then there is not a statistically large enough population of cyclists on your commute to draw any conclusions, more so if they do not all behave the same way. It is often hard to grasp this but i assure you if you get a statistician on here, they will agree.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    cournioni wrote: »
    Considering that I have met at most 8 cyclists on my commute in that time it is quite a lot. That is 62.5%.

    Are you telling me that 62.5% of motorists have broken the law in your three days?

    I can guarantee you more motorists would sail through red lights if they could get away with it. It's the traffic coming the other way that physically stops them, but doesn't put off the odd moron. Just my own experience on Dublin - especially on the on the quays. Wexford st junction is also fun to watch as is the cluster fcuk at st Stephens green / harcourt at junction.

    Kudos to Dublin bus, the odd car and taxi driver who clog the yellow box at the James Joyce bridge almost every morning with our fail. Makes my getting through this junction much easier.


  • #653
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    20% of drivers regularly use their mobile phones while driving
    46% Seldom use their mobile phones but do use them.
    35% dont use their phones while driving.

    So either i can say 64% percent of respondents claim to use phones while driving.

    Or I can say only 35% of drivers claim to not endanger others by using their mobile phones while driving.

    Here's some stats for you on cyclists:
    http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/dont-shoot-messenger-rules-of-road-for-everyone-26826612.html

    Unfortunately that doesn't include cyclists using their phone while cycling. Saw one texting a couple of weeks ago myself.


  • #654
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Why's it a fictitious class, just a logical extension to increase the general taxation base of Ireland.

    Do you not like the idea of equitable taxation? I do.

    While we're on the subject of radical thoughts, why not another! Use the money raised by (let's be fair) a €52 taxation class on cycles ( yeah €1 a week would bring in circa €364000 per year, based on just the 7000 Dublin cyclists in your post, to bring in a pseudo free registration scheme for any cyclist over the age of criminal responsibilty, I dunno maybe kill another 2 birds by a 6 digit hexadecimal number on a high viz jacket, and making it compulsary to wear the registration number when not in a certified and organised race.

    As for 7000 cyclists, who cares, you want to revolt, then revolt away, as long as you obey the traffic laws in your cars it'll be legal

    As to any countries springing to mind, did any spring to mind before smoking bans?

    That would not be equitable, because flat taxes are anathema to the principles of equitable taxation, offending as they do the principles of equity, adequacy and neutrality.......


  • #655
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    cournioni wrote: »
    Here's some stats for you on cyclists:
    http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/dont-shoot-messenger-rules-of-road-for-everyone-26826612.html

    Unfortunately that doesn't include cyclists using their phone while cycling. Saw one texting a couple of weeks ago myself.

    So I assume we can both now accept that motorists and cyclists break road traffic laws in nearly equal numbers, right?

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #656
    McGrath5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,482 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    For every cyclist and motorist that obeys the rules of the road, there is another one from each group that does not.

    Every morning on my way to work, at a certain junction, the vast majority of cyclists will break the red light, on some occasions I have witnessed them nearly getting themselves killed.

    Then, further on up the road, a load of private motorists feel perfectly entitled to use the bus lane, because their journey is obviously very important.


  • #657
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    cournioni wrote: »
    Here's some stats for you on cyclists:
    http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/dont-shoot-messenger-rules-of-road-for-everyone-26826612.html

    Unfortunately that doesn't include cyclists using their phone while cycling. Saw one texting a couple of weeks ago myself.

    From a car tyre manufacturer so totally unbiased then.


  • #658
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    I can guarantee you more motorists would sail through red lights if they could get away with it. It's the traffic coming the other way that physically stops them, but doesn't put off the odd moron. Just my own experience on Dublin - especially on the on the quays. Wexford st junction is also fun to watch as is the cluster fcuk at st Stephens green / harcourt at junction.

    Kudos to Dublin bus, the odd car and taxi driver who clog the yellow box at the James Joyce bridge almost every morning with our fail. Makes my getting through this junction much easier.
    Maybe they would if they could get away with it, but they don't. Cyclists generally do get away with it though. This is the issue a lot of motorists will have.


  • #659
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    cournioni wrote: »
    Maybe they would if they could get away with it, but they don't. Cyclists generally do get away with it though. This is the issue a lot of motorists will have.

    If drivers have such issues, and they feel cyclists are somehow a privileged class, why not get a back and join the party?


  • #660
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Now back to rational thought processes, if cyclists are to be accepted as part of traffic, is it not better to help adjust other road users mindsets to think of them as traffic by ( if required ) getting them to pay taxation for the use of the road

    Well we are part of traffic - the motoring mindset is to see cyclists as invading "their" roads.

    So no.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    cournioni wrote: »
    Maybe they would if they could get away with it, but they don't. Cyclists generally do get away with it though. This is the issue a lot of motorists will have.

    So all the people i see using phones whilst driving dont get away with?
    All the drivers stopped in yellow boxes dont get away with it?
    All the bus lane users in private vehicles dont get away with?
    Al the double yellow line parkers get caught as well?

    You really cannot be serious when you say motorists do not get away with breaking the rules.

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



Advertisement