At least she had a helmet on

[MrCheerful]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html

[Tarcap]

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html

Ah, but she was only "taking the lane".
But it still remains unclear which lane, or how many lanes, she was trying
to take.

[TMS320]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html

Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
was plenty of space and time to get past.

What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles the
scapegoat.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html

Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
was plenty of space and time to get past.

What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles the
scapegoat.

I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and try
to say it's the motorist's fault.
Predictably, not very long at all.
Well done.

[David Lang]

On 20/06/2015 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
> was plenty of space and time to get past.

He wouldn't have been watching her backside. Like all cyclists she was
butt ugly.
>
> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles the
> scapegoat.
>
>
It wasn't a driver unable to control her vehicle because of texting, nor
was it a driver who jumped a red light and rode on the pavement.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" > wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
> the
> scapegoat.
>
> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and try
> to say it's the motorist's fault.

I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am curious to
know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's fault".

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:15:57 +0100, "Tarcap" > wrote:

>
>
>"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
>Ah, but she was only "taking the lane".
>But it still remains unclear which lane, or how many lanes, she was trying
>to take.


I see she had the usual cyclist disregard for red lights, stop signs and
footpaths.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:31:23 +0100, "TMS320" > wrote:

>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles the
>scapegoat.


Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.

You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a discussion
criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in motorists.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" > wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
> the
> scapegoat.
>
> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and try
> to say it's the motorist's fault.

I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am curious to
know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's fault".

I apologise if I made it too difficult for you to understand.
In future I will write in "Jack and Jill" style just for you.

[Tarcap]

"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:31:23 +0100, "TMS320" > wrote:

>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>the
>scapegoat.


Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.

You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a
discussion
criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in motorists.

It is the best he can do - It's straight out of the psycholist's handbook.
Thinking for themselves is foreign territory for psycholists.

[TMS320]

"Judith" > wrote
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:31:23 +0100, "TMS320" > wrote:
>>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>
>>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
>>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>>the
>>scapegoat.
>
> Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.
>
> You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a
> discussion criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in
> motorists.

Oh dear, yet another automatic knee jerk response. Yes I forgot the moronist
rule. Though if you think this driver was not trying on some sort of tit for
tat commentary about cyclists and was therefore fair game, perhaps you could
suggest what he was doing.

You might also like to point out where I accuse this driver of breaking any
road regulations or causing danger.

[jnugent]

On 20/06/2015 14:44, TMS320 wrote:
> "Tarcap" > wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>
>> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
>> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>> the
>> scapegoat.
>>
>> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and try
>> to say it's the motorist's fault.
>
> I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
> managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am curious to
> know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's fault".

Let me venture a guess as to what the PP meant by "it" within the word
"it's" (which itself appears in a clause: "it's the motorist's fault").

I suggest, from the context, that what the PP said (and meant) could be
expanded out to something a bit like the following.

"I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
try to say it's the motorist's fault that the cyclist:

(a) rode without attempting to retain control of the bicycle's steering,

(b) failed to pay proper attention to the road (as evidenced by her
apparently sending and/or receiving text messages on a mobile phone),

(c) failed to stop at a red traffic light and

(d) cycled along a footway reserved for the use of pedestrians."

FWIW, I'd say that all of that was absolutely obvious from the context
and from what was said. I cannot imagine why you had difficulty with it.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Judith" > wrote
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:31:23 +0100, "TMS320" > wrote:
>>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>
>>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
>>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>>the
>>scapegoat.
>
> Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.
>
> You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a
> discussion criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in
> motorists.

Oh dear, yet another automatic knee jerk response. Yes I forgot the moronist
rule. Though if you think this driver was not trying on some sort of tit for
tat commentary about cyclists and was therefore fair game, perhaps you could
suggest what he was doing.

You might also like to point out where I accuse this driver of breaking any
road regulations or causing danger.

How about your wild and unsubstantiated guess "Looks like the driver was
more interested in watching her backside"
Which would be driving without due care and attention in anybody's book.

You must have a very poor memory - either that or the psycholist's
compelling propensity to wriggle.

[jnugent]

On 20/06/2015 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
> was plenty of space and time to get past.

And if she'd wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed by her v.
intrsng txt msgs, or even just decided to turn right without looking to
see whether she was being overtaken, you and others would undoubtedly
blame the driver for failing to anticipate the likelihood that should
would do so.

> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of let's
> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles the
> scapegoat.

Amazing.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:35:01 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> ****wit.

Thanks kindly for the great compliment.
Now please vomit o me the further accolades of monster, ogre, and
malformity.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:11 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Numb Nuts Mason

Judith is scaleless with soft skin. The skin of Judith has been described
as covering her body like a loosely fitting sock. Colors vary with the
species, and range from pink to blue-gray.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:13:25 +0100, Judith wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 10:15:57 +0100, "Tarcap" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...
>>
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-
Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-
London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>>Ah, but she was only "taking the lane".
>>But it still remains unclear which lane, or how many lanes, she was
>>trying to take.
>
>
> I see she had the usual cyclist disregard for red lights, stop signs and
> footpaths.

How true ...

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:11 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Numb Nuts Mason

Judith is scaleless with soft skin. The skin of Judith has been described
as covering her body like a loosely fitting sock. Colors vary with the
species, and range from pink to blue-gray.


Why do people make snide remarks?

People usually make side remarks when they don't feel good about
themselves and where they are in their life.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 20/06/2015 14:44, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Tarcap" > wrote
>>> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>>
>>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside;
>>> there
>>> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>>
>>> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of
>>> let's
>>> ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>>> the
>>> scapegoat.
>>>
>>> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
>>> try
>>> to say it's the motorist's fault.
>>
>> I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
>> managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am curious
>> to
>> know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's fault".
>
> Let me venture a guess as to what the PP meant by "it" within the word
> "it's" (which itself appears in a clause: "it's the motorist's fault").
>
> I suggest, from the context, that what the PP said (and meant) could be
> expanded out to something a bit like the following.
>
> "I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
> try to say it's the motorist's fault that the cyclist:
>
> (a) rode without attempting to retain control of the bicycle's steering,
>
> (b) failed to pay proper attention to the road (as evidenced by her
> apparently sending and/or receiving text messages on a mobile phone),
>
> (c) failed to stop at a red traffic light and
>
> (d) cycled along a footway reserved for the use of pedestrians."

You forgot to mention the price of fish

> FWIW, I'd say that all of that was absolutely obvious from the context and
> from what was said. I cannot imagine why you had difficulty with it.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:47:49 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> "Peter Keller" wrote in message ...
>
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:16:11 +0100, Judith wrote:
>
>> Numb Nuts Mason
>
> Judith is scaleless with soft skin. The skin of Judith has been
> described as covering her body like a loosely fitting sock. Colors vary
> with the species, and range from pink to blue-gray.
>
>
> Why do people make snide remarks?
>
> People usually make side remarks when they don't feel good about
> themselves and where they are in their life.

Of course.
And I have absolutely no wish to look good in your eyes or to make up
anything to you.
My post stands.
You say I am full of ****. I will become so full of **** just for you so
I can **** all over your face and into your mouth and nose under high
pressure.

[jnugent]

On 22/06/2015 08:10, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> On 20/06/2015 14:44, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "Tarcap" > wrote
>>>> "TMS320" wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:

>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>
>>>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside;
>>>> there was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
>>>> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of
>>>> let's ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on
>>>> bicycles the scapegoat.
>
>>>> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
>>>> try to say it's the motorist's fault.
>
>>> I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
>>> managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am curious
>>> to know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's fault".
>
>> Let me venture a guess as to what the PP meant by "it" within the word
>> "it's" (which itself appears in a clause: "it's the motorist's fault").
>> I suggest, from the context, that what the PP said (and meant) could be
>> expanded out to something a bit like the following.
>> "I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
>> try to say it's the motorist's fault that the cyclist:
>> (a) rode without attempting to retain control of the bicycle's steering,
>> (b) failed to pay proper attention to the road (as evidenced by her
>> apparently sending and/or receiving text messages on a mobile phone),
>> (c) failed to stop at a red traffic light and
>> (d) cycled along a footway reserved for the use of pedestrians."
>
> You forgot to mention the price of fish

Is that really the best you can do?

>> FWIW, I'd say that all of that was absolutely obvious from the context and
>> from what was said. I cannot imagine why you had difficulty with it.

And no response to that?

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" > wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message ... "Judith"
> > wrote
>> "TMS320" > wrote:
>>>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message

>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>>
>>>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>>>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>>
>>>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of
>>>let's
>>>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>>>the
>>>scapegoat.
>>
>> Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.
>>
>> You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a
>> discussion criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in
>> motorists.
>
> Oh dear, yet another automatic knee jerk response. Yes I forgot the
> moronist
> rule. Though if you think this driver was not trying on some sort of tit
> for tat commentary about cyclists and was therefore fair game, perhaps you
> could suggest what he was doing.
>
> You might also like to point out where I accuse this driver of breaking
> any road regulations or causing danger.
>
> How about your wild and unsubstantiated guess "Looks like the driver was
> more interested in watching her backside"
> Which would be driving without due care and attention in anybody's book.

One of the basic requirements of driving that the driver spends most of
the time looking out of the front window. It seems that requirement was met.

> You must have a very poor memory - either that or the psycholist's
> compelling propensity to wriggle.

Of course I made a guess. So far, responses have been to rubbish it without
offering alternatives. How about you trying?

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 20/06/2015 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>
> And if she'd wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed by her v.
> intrsng txt msgs, or even just decided to turn right without looking to
> see whether she was being overtaken, you and others would undoubtedly
> blame the driver for failing to anticipate the likelihood that should
> would do so.

It is a fundamental requirement of using the road to try and avoid
crashing due to another being in the wrong. Of course there are
circumstances where the greater wrong is failing to avoid; I expect the
courts spend a lot time trying to decide this.

It hardly explains why someone woul not overtake when a whole lane was
obviously available. If you want to make a point of this, then it becomes
necessary to start wondering whether the driver was following far enough
behind.

[jnugent]

On 22/06/2015 12:20, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 20/06/2015 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>>
>>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>>> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>
>> And if she'd wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed by her v.
>> intrsng txt msgs, or even just decided to turn right without looking to
>> see whether she was being overtaken, you and others would undoubtedly
>> blame the driver for failing to anticipate the likelihood that should
>> would do so.
>
> It is a fundamental requirement of using the road to try and avoid
> crashing due to another being in the wrong. Of course there are
> circumstances where the greater wrong is failing to avoid; I expect the
> courts spend a lot time trying to decide this.
>
> It hardly explains why someone woul not overtake when a whole lane was
> obviously available. If you want to make a point of this, then it becomes
> necessary to start wondering whether the driver was following far enough
> behind.

Don't obfuscate.

Would you, or would you not, have blamed the driver (whose camera it
was) if the cyclist had wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed
by her texting activity or just turned right without looking to see
whether she was being overtaken?

If you think that the driver would be automatically to blame (and that
cyclists bear no responsibility no matter how bad their behaviour), it
should be easy for you to say so.

And vice-versa.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message ...


"Tarcap" > wrote
> "TMS320" wrote in message ... "Judith"
> > wrote
>> "TMS320" > wrote:
>>>"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message

>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>>
>>>Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside; there
>>>was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>>
>>>What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of
>>>let's
>>>ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on bicycles
>>>the
>>>scapegoat.
>>
>> Oh dear: is that the best that you can do.
>>
>> You are as bad as Numb Nuts Mason: he would always try and steer a
>> discussion criticising cyclists into the faults he perceived in
>> motorists.
>
> Oh dear, yet another automatic knee jerk response. Yes I forgot the
> moronist
> rule. Though if you think this driver was not trying on some sort of tit
> for tat commentary about cyclists and was therefore fair game, perhaps you
> could suggest what he was doing.
>
> You might also like to point out where I accuse this driver of breaking
> any road regulations or causing danger.
>
> How about your wild and unsubstantiated guess "Looks like the driver was
> more interested in watching her backside"
> Which would be driving without due care and attention in anybody's book.

One of the basic requirements of driving that the driver spends most of
the time looking out of the front window. It seems that requirement was met.

> You must have a very poor memory - either that or the psycholist's
> compelling propensity to wriggle.

Of course I made a guess. So far, responses have been to rubbish it without
offering alternatives. How about you trying?

No - if you don't know for sure, just wildly guessing will not help anyone
at all.
If you don't know the facts, it's better just to keep your mouth shut.
(I do know that's an alien concept to psycholists, though, and I am sure you
will continue to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper)

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:10:42 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> ****wits,

Why do people insult others?

People who insult can feel backed in, threatened and fearful, making them
lash out because they know no other way to handle themselves in every
situation or conversation.

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:10:42 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> ****wits,

Why do people insult others?

People who insult can feel backed in, threatened and fearful, making them
lash out because they know no other way to handle themselves in every
situation or conversation.

Why do people insist on calling themselves ****wits?

They just might be right for once.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 22/06/2015 08:10, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" > wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2015 14:44, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "Tarcap" > wrote
>>>>> "TMS320" wrote:
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>
>>>>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside;
>>>>> there was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>
>>>>> What she did certainly wasn't sensible but it's just another case of
>>>>> let's ignore the sins and danger caused by drivers and make people on
>>>>> bicycles the scapegoat.
>>
>>>>> I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
>>>>> try to say it's the motorist's fault.
>>
>>>> I wondered how long it would take before a moronist would appear, only
>>>> managing to produce an automated knee-jerk response. Even so I am
>>>> curious
>>>> to know what's on your mind with the "it's" in "it's the motorist's
>>>> fault".
>>
>>> Let me venture a guess as to what the PP meant by "it" within the word
>>> "it's" (which itself appears in a clause: "it's the motorist's fault").
>>> I suggest, from the context, that what the PP said (and meant) could be
>>> expanded out to something a bit like the following.
>>> "I wondered how long it would take before a psycholist would appear and
>>> try to say it's the motorist's fault that the cyclist:
>>> (a) rode without attempting to retain control of the bicycle's steering,
>>> (b) failed to pay proper attention to the road (as evidenced by her
>>> apparently sending and/or receiving text messages on a mobile phone),
>>> (c) failed to stop at a red traffic light and
>>> (d) cycled along a footway reserved for the use of pedestrians."
>>
>> You forgot to mention the price of fish
>
> Is that really the best you can do?

In this instance, it is all that's required.

>>> FWIW, I'd say that all of that was absolutely obvious from the context
>>> and
>>> from what was said. I cannot imagine why you had difficulty with it.
>
> And no response to that?

I don't have your telepathic ability. That's why I asked the question.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 22/06/2015 12:20, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>>> On 20/06/2015 11:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3131256/Has-got-death-wish-Incredible-dashcam-footage-shows-idiot-cyclist-riding-no-hands-busy-London-streets-s-busy-TEXTING.html
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the driver was more interested in watching her backside;
>>>> there
>>>> was plenty of space and time to get past.
>>>
>>> And if she'd wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed by her v.
>>> intrsng txt msgs, or even just decided to turn right without looking to
>>> see whether she was being overtaken, you and others would undoubtedly
>>> blame the driver for failing to anticipate the likelihood that should
>>> would do so.
>>
>> It is a fundamental requirement of using the road to try and avoid
>> crashing due to another being in the wrong. Of course there are
>> circumstances where the greater wrong is failing to avoid; I expect the
>> courts spend a lot time trying to decide this.
>>
>> It hardly explains why someone woul not overtake when a whole lane was
>> obviously available. If you want to make a point of this, then it becomes
>> necessary to start wondering whether the driver was following far enough
>> behind.
>
> Don't obfuscate.

I'm not.

> Would you, or would you not, have blamed the driver (whose camera it was)
> if the cyclist had wobbled into the driver's path whilst absorbed by her
> texting activity or just turned right without looking to see whether she
> was being overtaken?

It depends on space and timing. That ought to be obvious.

> If you think that the driver would be automatically to blame (and that
> cyclists bear no responsibility no matter how bad their behaviour), it
> should be easy for you to say so.
>
> And vice-versa.

The other way round?

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:41:34 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> They just might be right for once.

After all I ride a ****ing bike!
That realy makes me a ****ing ****wit in your eyes.
And I take that as a ****ing compliment coming from you.
Now please ****ing ejaculate to me from you the further ****ing honour of
having ****ing crawled out of a ****ing mutant maggot egg.

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:41:34 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> They just might be right for once.

After all I ride a ****ing bike!
That realy makes me a ****ing ****wit

There, that's all that's needed.
You needn't have taxed your brain writing all that other guff.

[TMS320]

"Tarcap" > wrote in message
> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
> "Tarcap" > wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
>
> Of course I made a guess. So far, responses have been to rubbish it
> without offering alternatives. How about you trying?
>
> No - if you don't know for sure, just wildly guessing will not help anyone
> at all.

Many facts get
established by guessing first; then examining them, reducing the less likely
and
reinforcing the more likely. You could play a part in that. Only Nugent
managed to put forward another suggestion even though it raised other
questions.

> If you don't know the facts, it's better just to keep your mouth shut.
> (I do know that's an alien concept to psycholists, though, and I am sure
> you will continue to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper)

Moronists rubbishing everything helps even less.

[Tarcap]

"TMS320" wrote in message ...

"Tarcap" > wrote in message
> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
> "Tarcap" > wrote
>> "TMS320" wrote in message ...
>
> Of course I made a guess. So far, responses have been to rubbish it
> without offering alternatives. How about you trying?
>
> No - if you don't know for sure, just wildly guessing will not help anyone
> at all.

Many facts get
established by guessing first; then examining them, reducing the less likely
and
reinforcing the more likely. You could play a part in that. Only Nugent
managed to put forward another suggestion even though it raised other
questions.

You are a newspaper reporter working for "The Sun" , and I claim my £5.



> If you don't know the facts, it's better just to keep your mouth shut.
> (I do know that's an alien concept to psycholists, though, and I am sure
> you will continue to keep digging yourself deeper and deeper)

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:21:14 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

> After all I ride a ****ing bike! That realy makes me a ****ing ****wit

That is not ****ing going to stop me using my bike as a very useful
convenient economical viable delightful means of ****ing transport!
And thanks very much for your compliment ejaculated to me by you.

Now please **** towards me the further ****ing honour of ****ing heavy-
metal bagpipe player.
That would make me ecstatically ****ing happy.