Highly skilled and dedicated...

[jnugent]

....so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?

<http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>

The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments
below have been moderated in advance").

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:12:14 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

>...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>
><http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>
>The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments
>below have been moderated in advance").


Wicked photos.

Much better than the last time it happened.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:12:14 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

>...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>
><http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>
>The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments
>below have been moderated in advance").

I think the comments are disgusting. The Daily Mail should be ashamed of
itself for allowing people to say things like below. I think the last one is
outrageous:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they got in my way whilst I was driving my Robin reliant id crush them

Probably all high.....

That will teach them for riding nose to crack!

only 26mph? Usain Bolt can run at 27 without a pedal and wheels.

they're all probably stoned on drugs to feel much pain.

They should pay for the lamp post repairs

Aren't they professionals? Why are they falling over? Maybe they need
stabilisers, like children

Few hit & runners cycling off into the distance lol.

Push bike races are the most boring race to watch that crash was most likely
the best part of the whole race

Very similar to many a London junction

That'll keep them off the road for a while then hopefully!!

Must have been an invisible motorist, no way could a cyclist have caused an
accident....

Cyclists always cause accidents in cities, especially jumping red lights,
riding on the pavements, and frightening pedestrians.

Breaking news. Cyclists packed together like sardines take a tumble and crash.
Oh why didn't we see that one coming eh? Zzzzz

Bet you one of them captured it on his Gopro helmet cam and is on his way to
the police station with the footage.....oh wait, they only do that when there's
a motorist involved!!

[jnugent]

On 06/07/2015 23:09, Judith wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>
>> ...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>
>> The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments
>> below have been moderated in advance").
>
> I think the comments are disgusting. The Daily Mail should be ashamed of
> itself for allowing people to say things like below. I think the last one is
> outrageous:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If they got in my way whilst I was driving my Robin reliant id crush them
>
> Probably all high.....
>
> That will teach them for riding nose to crack!
>
> only 26mph? Usain Bolt can run at 27 without a pedal and wheels.
>
> they're all probably stoned on drugs to feel much pain.
>
> They should pay for the lamp post repairs
>
> Aren't they professionals? Why are they falling over? Maybe they need
> stabilisers, like children
>
> Few hit & runners cycling off into the distance lol.
>
> Push bike races are the most boring race to watch that crash was most likely
> the best part of the whole race
>
> Very similar to many a London junction
>
> That'll keep them off the road for a while then hopefully!!
>
> Must have been an invisible motorist, no way could a cyclist have caused an
> accident....
>
> Cyclists always cause accidents in cities, especially jumping red lights,
> riding on the pavements, and frightening pedestrians.
>
> Breaking news. Cyclists packed together like sardines take a tumble and crash.
> Oh why didn't we see that one coming eh? Zzzzz
>
> Bet you one of them captured it on his Gopro helmet cam and is on his way to
> the police station with the footage.....oh wait, they only do that when there's
> a motorist involved!!

I'm sure that all right-thinking people would wish to disassociate
themselves from all of those comments.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> ...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>
> The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments below
> have been moderated in advance").

I've set one photo as my desktop background.
It's raining and just looking at the photo cheers me up no end.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 06/07/2015 21:12, JNugent wrote:
> ...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>
> The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments
> below have been moderated in advance").


It now says "The comments below have not been moderated."


I must admit this one made from ejb2108 me chuckle.

"Why aren't they all wearing head cams that's what cyclists do these
days, hope they know who caused it so the NWNF solicitors can get to work"

It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
their actions.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 13:26:19 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
>
> I must admit this one made from ejb2108 me chuckle.
>
> "Why aren't they all wearing head cams that's what cyclists do these
> days, hope they know who caused it so the NWNF solicitors can get to work"
>
> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> their actions.

Here are two highly skilled road users.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00809/SNA2331A1-682_809905a.jpg

Sadly, the outcome was nothing to laugh about.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:28:39 +0100, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
> wrote:

>
>"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
>> ...so it must have been someone else's fault, surely?
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/nmj2rgk>
>>
>> The comments are worth reading (although: apparently, "The comments below
>> have been moderated in advance").
>
>I've set one photo as my desktop background.
>It's raining and just looking at the photo cheers me up no end.
>


There will be blood on your hands :-)

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 13:26:19 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
>
> I must admit this one made from ejb2108 me chuckle.
>
> "Why aren't they all wearing head cams that's what cyclists do these
> days, hope they know who caused it so the NWNF solicitors can get to work"
>
> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> their actions.

Here are two highly skilled road users.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00809/SNA2331A1-682_809905a.jpg

Sadly, the outcome was nothing to laugh about.

I just thought I'd post another link, just to show how desperate Mason is
getting by posting old stories from 6 years ago.
(Note how he only posted a link to the photo in order to disguise the date -
a very old trick he is keen on using.)
Kinda pathetic, perhaps?

[Tarcap]

"Tarcap" wrote in message ...



"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 13:26:19 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
>
> I must admit this one made from ejb2108 me chuckle.
>
> "Why aren't they all wearing head cams that's what cyclists do these
> days, hope they know who caused it so the NWNF solicitors can get to work"
>
> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> their actions.

Here are two highly skilled road users.

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00809/SNA2331A1-682_809905a.jpg

Sadly, the outcome was nothing to laugh about.

I just thought I'd post another link, just to show how desperate Mason is
getting by posting old stories from 6 years ago.
(Note how he only posted a link to the photo in order to disguise the date -
a very old trick he is keen on using.)
Kinda pathetic, perhaps?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/scottishnews/2444404/Ambulance-and-cop-car-crash.html

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:

> >
> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> >their actions.
>
> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.

I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:

> >
> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> >their actions.
>
> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.

I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have used
to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most grateful
as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.

Simon's telling porkies, again.

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 15:10, Adia wrote:
> Alycidon wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>>> their actions.
>>>
>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>
>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>
> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
> ever more accountable.
>
>
This is one of the best examples:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/watch-the-moment-angry-cyclist-falls-off-bike-after-swearing-at-passing-driver-10311649.html

[jnugent]

On 07/07/2015 13:38, Alycidon wrote:

> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 13:26:19 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>> I must admit this one made from ejb2108 me chuckle.

>> "Why aren't they all wearing head cams that's what cyclists do these
>> days, hope they know who caused it so the NWNF solicitors can get to work"
>
>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>> their actions.

> Here are two highly skilled road users.
> http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/00809/SNA2331A1-682_809905a.jpg
> Sadly, the outcome was nothing to laugh about.

Ouch!

[jnugent]

On 07/07/2015 15:40, Adia wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2015 15:10, Adia wrote:
>>> Alycidon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>>>>> their actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>
>>>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>>>
>>> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
>>> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
>>> ever more accountable.
>>>
>>>
>> This is one of the best examples:
>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/watch-the-moment-angry-cyclist-falls-off-bike-after-swearing-at-passing-driver-10311649.html
>
> Lol! Talk about instant retribution.
>
> It looks like he was so intent on putting that unlikely older cyclist,
> who had just whizzed past him, back in his place that he eventually
> lost it completely. I'd give him full marks, though, for making his
> video clip available.

That latter was my thought exactly.

"Sporting", I'd say.
>
>

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:09:59 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> Alycidon wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
> >> >their actions.
> >>
> >> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> >> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> >> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> >> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> >> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
> >
> >I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>
> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
> ever more accountable.

The best ones were teenage idiots on illegal motorbikes which are very tricky for plod to catch as they tend to scarper when approached, but they were easy meat for me. :-) Four bikes in the crusher!

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:03:26 +0100, Tarcap > wrote:

>
>
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>
>> >
>> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>> >their actions.
>>
>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>
> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
> used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most
> grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>
> Simon's telling porkies, again.

Attributions not present; please try again.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[jnugent]

On 07/07/2015 16:53, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:03:26 +0100, Tarcap > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Alycidon" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>> >their actions.
>>>
>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>
>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
>> used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were
>> most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>>
>> Simon's telling porkies, again.
>
> Attributions not present; please try again.

???

AFAICS, the attributions are there (above).

Perhaps the fact that the previous poster did not say that "Alycidon =
Simon" gave rise to some confusion.

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:09:59 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> Alycidon wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
> >> >for
> >> >their actions.
> >>
> >> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> >> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> >> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> >> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> >> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
> >
> >I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
> >used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most
> >grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>
> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
> ever more accountable.

The best ones were teenage idiots on illegal motorbikes which are very
tricky for plod to catch as they tend to scarper when approached, but they
were easy meat for me. :-) Four bikes in the crusher!

There's a strong smell of male cattle excreta around here - I wonder what it
could be?

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 17:39:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:09:59 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> > Alycidon wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
> > >> >for
> > >> >their actions.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> > >> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> > >> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> > >> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> > >> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
> > >
> > >I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
> > >used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most
> > >grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
> >
> > Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
> > roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
> > ever more accountable.
>
> The best ones were teenage idiots on illegal motorbikes which are very
> tricky for plod to catch as they tend to scarper when approached, but they
> were easy meat for me. :-) Four bikes in the crusher!
>
> There's a strong smell of male cattle excreta around here - I wonder what it
> could be?

Your dinner perhaps? Can you only afford to eat the back end of cattle?

Mind you, it was in October 2011, so at your age you can be excused for not remembering the thread "My first collar".

Check with WPC Rachel Thomas at Tower Grange, HU8 9HP for confirmation.

HTH.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/07/2015 16:53, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 15:03:26 +0100, Tarcap > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alycidon" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
>>>> >for
>>>> >their actions.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>
>>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
>>> used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were
>>> most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>>>
>>> Simon's telling porkies, again.
>>
>> Attributions not present; please try again.
>
> ???
>
> AFAICS, the attributions are there (above).
>
> Perhaps the fact that the previous poster did not say that "Alycidon =
> Simon" gave rise to some confusion.

It's that knobhead from one of the Channel Islands. He had the driving group
in stitches when he described his (many) driving lessons.
I did ask him if he passed his driving test in another thread, he never
answered my question.
Me thinks that he was too stupid to pass the test, this is why he is a rider
of a child's toy.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/07/2015 15:40, Adia wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2015 15:10, Adia wrote:
>>>> Alycidon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> their actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
>>>>> used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were
>>>>> most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
>>>> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
>>>> ever more accountable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is one of the best examples:
>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/watch-the-moment-angry-cyclist-falls-off-bike-after-swearing-at-passing-driver-10311649.html
>>
>> Lol! Talk about instant retribution.
>>
>> It looks like he was so intent on putting that unlikely older cyclist,
>> who had just whizzed past him, back in his place that he eventually
>> lost it completely. I'd give him full marks, though, for making his
>> video clip available.
>
> That latter was my thought exactly.
>
> "Sporting", I'd say.

Yup, he really improved the image of the cyclist.
Or, did he confirm the image of the cyclist?
The word "prat" springs to mind.




>>
>>
>

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 19:29:05 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>
> Yup, he really improved the image of the cyclist.
> Or, did he confirm the image of the cyclist?
> The word "prat" springs to mind.

Dedicated website "Idiot UK Drivers Exposed"

Today's idiot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152114/I-m-not-moving-three-minutes-past-four-Moment-bus-driver-angry-stand-motorist-passers-blocking-car-parked-stop.html

Classic quote: "I have to tell you three times. One, I am a trained fighter, two, I am a trained fighter, three, I am a trained fighter. So if you put one finger on me mate I am going to wipe the floor with you."

Ooo. Scary!

[jnugent]

On 07/07/2015 19:28, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 07/07/2015 15:40, Adia wrote:
>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/07/2015 15:10, Adia wrote:
>>>>> Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> their actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
>>>>>> used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were
>>>>>> most grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
>>>>> roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
>>>>> ever more accountable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is one of the best examples:
>>>> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/watch-the-moment-angry-cyclist-falls-off-bike-after-swearing-at-passing-driver-10311649.html
>>>
>>> Lol! Talk about instant retribution.
>>>
>>> It looks like he was so intent on putting that unlikely older cyclist,
>>> who had just whizzed past him, back in his place that he eventually
>>> lost it completely. I'd give him full marks, though, for making his
>>> video clip available.
>>
>> That latter was my thought exactly.
>>
>> "Sporting", I'd say.
>
> Yup, he really improved the image of the cyclist.
> Or, did he confirm the image of the cyclist?
> The word "prat" springs to mind.

Not incompatible with being a sport.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 19:26:06 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>
> It's that knobhead from one of the Channel Islands. He had the driving group
> in stitches when he described his (many) driving lessons.
> I did ask him if he passed his driving test in another thread, he never
> answered my question.
> Me thinks that he was too stupid to pass the test, this is why he is a rider
> of a child's toy.

Was he from Sark? In which case, cars are banned which may be why he cycles everywhere.

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 17:39:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:09:59 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> > Alycidon wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 14:27:21 UTC+1, Adia wrote:
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible
> > >> >for
> > >> >their actions.
> > >>
> > >> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> > >> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> > >> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> > >> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> > >> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
> > >
> > >I have had at least four successful videos clips that the police have
> > >used to bring lawbreaking drivers/motorcyclists to book. They were most
> > >grateful as I could film wihout the perps knowing it.
> >
> > Excellent results, then! We are all responsible for our actions on the
> > roads and modern technology is helping to ensure that we are becoming
> > ever more accountable.
>
> The best ones were teenage idiots on illegal motorbikes which are very
> tricky for plod to catch as they tend to scarper when approached, but they
> were easy meat for me. :-) Four bikes in the crusher!
>
> There's a strong smell of male cattle excreta around here - I wonder what
> it
> could be?

Your dinner perhaps? Can you only afford to eat the back end of cattle?

Mind you, it was in October 2011, so at your age you can be excused for not
remembering the thread "My first collar".

Check with WPC Rachel Thomas at Tower Grange, HU8 9HP for confirmation.

Yes, and the police regularly give out information of this nature, don't
they? (Not, is the answer you're looking for, by the way.)
Now could you please provide some checkable information, instead of your
endless bluffing and blustering?

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:25:21 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

>
> Yes, and the police regularly give out information of this nature, don't
> they? (Not, is the answer you're looking for, by the way.)
> Now could you please provide some checkable information, instead of your
> endless bluffing and blustering?

I can show you the same videos that the police used to crush the perps' bikes.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike.wmv

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike2.wmv

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 19:46, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 19:29:05 UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>
>>
>> Yup, he really improved the image of the cyclist.
>> Or, did he confirm the image of the cyclist?
>> The word "prat" springs to mind.
>
> Dedicated website "Idiot UK Drivers Exposed"
>
> Today's idiot.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152114/I-m-not-moving-three-minutes-past-four-Moment-bus-driver-angry-stand-motorist-passers-blocking-car-parked-stop.html
>
> Classic quote: "I have to tell you three times. One, I am a trained fighter, two, I am a trained fighter, three, I am a trained fighter. So if you put one finger on me mate I am going to wipe the floor with you."
>
> Ooo. Scary!
>

I assume that was the cyclist's statement?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
> Nick wrote:

>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>> their actions.
>
> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>

This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking compensation.

These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
from reliable camera vidence.

You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>
>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>> their actions.
>>
>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>
>
> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
> the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
> obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking compensation.
>
> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
> from reliable camera vidence.
>
> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>
>

Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film. One
today, wobbling all over the road while carrying a second bicycle, that
could probably have got money from some TV show. I would love to have
video evidence that shows them doing something really prattish in front
of me, like last night's ninja cyclist (all black and no lights or
reflectives) went to ride straight off a centre island as I was leaving
a roundabout, happily he did look and managed to stop, but it was very
close.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:00:55 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.

It should thankfully put an end to the tired old "low flying Sun" excuse as well which is a driver's favourite wriggle.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Husband-s-grief-lorry-driver-avoids-jail-fatal/story-16419484-detail/story.html

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:25:21 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

>
> Yes, and the police regularly give out information of this nature, don't
> they? (Not, is the answer you're looking for, by the way.)
> Now could you please provide some checkable information, instead of your
> endless bluffing and blustering?

I can show you the same videos that the police used to crush the perps'
bikes.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike.wmv

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike2.wmv

Still more bluffing and blustering, I see.
Now how about some actual proof that the police used them as evidence?

You see, I have had quite a lot of past experience in this field, and I know
just how difficult it is to get a court to accept non-professional and
uncalibrated video as evidence.
A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly, just
not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.

PhilWLee has made similar claims, and has never been able to provide any
proof of his claims when challenged.

That's why I think you are lying

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:00:55 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.

These sort of prosecutions will become more common as the lawbreakers that previously got away scot free can now be thankfully brought to justice.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/100-fine-for-dundee-driver-caught-using-mobile-phone-by-gopro-equipped-cyclist-1.888416

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 21:40, Nick wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 20:47, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>>> Classic quote: "I have to tell you three times. One, I am a trained
>>> fighter, two, I am a trained fighter, three, I am a trained fighter.
>>> So if you put one finger on me mate I am going to wipe the floor with
>>> you."
>>>
>>> Ooo. Scary!
>>>
>>
>> I assume that was the cyclist's statement?
>
>
> No it was a "trained fighter's" statement. If you assumed less you
> wouldn't be wrong so often. You should read the URL it is funny. Hats
> off the bus driver.
>

So which one was the cyclist?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 07/07/2015 20:47, Mrcheerful wrote:

>> Classic quote: "I have to tell you three times. One, I am a trained
>> fighter, two, I am a trained fighter, three, I am a trained fighter.
>> So if you put one finger on me mate I am going to wipe the floor with
>> you."
>>
>> Ooo. Scary!
>>
>
> I assume that was the cyclist's statement?


No it was a "trained fighter's" statement. If you assumed less you
wouldn't be wrong so often. You should read the URL it is funny. Hats
off the bus driver.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:32:05 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:25:21 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, and the police regularly give out information of this nature, don't
> > they? (Not, is the answer you're looking for, by the way.)
> > Now could you please provide some checkable information, instead of your
> > endless bluffing and blustering?
>
> I can show you the same videos that the police used to crush the perps'
> bikes.
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike.wmv
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike2.wmv
>
> Still more bluffing and blustering, I see.
> Now how about some actual proof that the police used them as evidence?
>
> You see, I have had quite a lot of past experience in this field, and I know
> just how difficult it is to get a court to accept non-professional and
> uncalibrated video as evidence.
> A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly, just
> not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.

Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses, confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.

It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 21:36, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:00:55 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>
> These sort of prosecutions will become more common as the lawbreakers that previously got away scot free can now be thankfully brought to justice.
>
> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/100-fine-for-dundee-driver-caught-using-mobile-phone-by-gopro-equipped-cyclist-1.888416
>

Why would they be thankful?

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:39:04 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
> >> Classic quote: "I have to tell you three times. One, I am a trained
> >> fighter, two, I am a trained fighter, three, I am a trained fighter.
> >> So if you put one finger on me mate I am going to wipe the floor with
> >> you."
> >>
> >> Ooo. Scary!
> >>
> >
> > I assume that was the cyclist's statement?
>
>
> No it was a "trained fighter's" statement. If you assumed less you
> wouldn't be wrong so often. You should read the URL it is funny. Hats
> off the bus driver.

The readers' comments were funny as well. Like you say, well done to the bus driver.

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 21:32:05 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 20:25:21 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, and the police regularly give out information of this nature, don't
> > they? (Not, is the answer you're looking for, by the way.)
> > Now could you please provide some checkable information, instead of your
> > endless bluffing and blustering?
>
> I can show you the same videos that the police used to crush the perps'
> bikes.
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike.wmv
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/bike2.wmv
>
> Still more bluffing and blustering, I see.
> Now how about some actual proof that the police used them as evidence?
>
> You see, I have had quite a lot of past experience in this field, and I
> know
> just how difficult it is to get a court to accept non-professional and
> uncalibrated video as evidence.
> A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly, just
> not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.

Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses,
confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.

It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.

So how did they obtain the criminals addresses from your piece of
"evidence"?
I've got a funny feeling this story is going to take yet another strange but
predictable turn.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:17:59 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

> > A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly, just
> > not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.
>
> Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
> The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses,
> confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.
>
> It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.
>
> So how did they obtain the criminals addresses from your piece of
> "evidence"?
> I've got a funny feeling this story is going to take yet another strange but
> predictable turn.

Silly billy.

They are community coppers, do you honestly imagine that they don't know the identity of the local herberts on their patch? On the unlikely chance that they don't, all they have to do is to show the mug shots to the local school staff and the job's a good 'un.

You would never make a detective, that's for sure.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 07/07/2015 21:17, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>>> Nick wrote:
>>
>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>>> their actions.
>>>
>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>
>>
>> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
>> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
>> the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
>> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
>> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
>> obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
>> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking compensation.
>>
>> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
>> from reliable camera vidence.
>>
>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
> antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film.

Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.

>One
> today, wobbling all over the road while carrying a second bicycle, that
> could probably have got money from some TV show. I would love to have
> video evidence that shows them doing something really prattish in front
> of me, like last night's ninja cyclist (all black and no lights or
> reflectives) went to ride straight off a centre island as I was leaving
> a roundabout, happily he did look and managed to stop, but it was very
> close.

Ooh sounds dangerous were you at risk of serious injury.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:28:37 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

> >
> > Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
> > antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film.
>
> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.

Indeed - especially the notorious "cash for crash" fiddles.

http://www.axa.co.uk/insurance/personal/car/dashcams/

[MrCheerful]

On 07/07/2015 22:30, Nick wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 21:17, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>>>> their actions.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
>>> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
>>> the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
>>> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
>>> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
>>> obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
>>> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking compensation.
>>>
>>> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
>>> from reliable camera vidence.
>>>
>>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>>> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
>>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
>> antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film.
>
> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>
>> One
>> today, wobbling all over the road while carrying a second bicycle, that
>> could probably have got money from some TV show. I would love to have
>> video evidence that shows them doing something really prattish in front
>> of me, like last night's ninja cyclist (all black and no lights or
>> reflectives) went to ride straight off a centre island as I was leaving
>> a roundabout, happily he did look and managed to stop, but it was very
>> close.
>
> Ooh sounds dangerous were you at risk of serious injury.
>

It would have been as the rider would have come straight toward my
windscreen.

[David Lang]

On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>
>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held responsible for
>>> their actions.
>>
>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>
>
> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
> the more severe damage.

That's simply because the push bike is an utterly ridiculous non viable
form of transport, only used by a tint insignificant minority.

> This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.

That's because they are trained, licensed, insured & regulated properly.

> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
> obviously true in our current legal system.

And quite correct.

>The second obvious
> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking compensation.

Because they are sponging freeloaders.
>
> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
> from reliable camera evidence.

Cyclists wear head cameras because they are complete ******s. No oter
reason.
>
> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.

Cyclists should know their place and keep out of the way of tax paying
motorists.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 07/07/2015 22:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 22:30, Nick wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 21:17, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held
>>>>>> responsible for
>>>>>> their actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
>>>> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
>>>> the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
>>>> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
>>>> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
>>>> obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
>>>> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking
>>>> compensation.
>>>>
>>>> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
>>>> from reliable camera vidence.
>>>>
>>>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>>>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>>>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>>>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>>>> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
>>>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
>>> antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film.
>>
>> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>>
>>> One
>>> today, wobbling all over the road while carrying a second bicycle, that
>>> could probably have got money from some TV show. I would love to have
>>> video evidence that shows them doing something really prattish in front
>>> of me, like last night's ninja cyclist (all black and no lights or
>>> reflectives) went to ride straight off a centre island as I was leaving
>>> a roundabout, happily he did look and managed to stop, but it was very
>>> close.
>>
>> Ooh sounds dangerous were you at risk of serious injury.
>>
>
> It would have been as the rider would have come straight toward my
> windscreen.

That's amazing. On an average cycle trip I feel more threatened by a
motorist taking excessive risks than I have ever felt threatened by any
cyclist in my entire life as a motorist. Last year I did once feel
slightly threatened by a cyclist who brushed past my elbow as he pasted
me when I was walking on the pavement but I've never felt threatened in
a car.

I wonder how many motorists are injured by cyclists going through their
windscreen. Do you have such an example of a driver sustaining a serious
injury from your vast store of cycle related problems. This sounds like
a serious problem that has been overlooked, something should be done!

[Nick[_4_]]

On 07/07/2015 23:57, Adia wrote:

>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>> was cycling too fast"...
>
> A generalisation, but they seem quite common on this newsgroup.
>

Actually all from my own personal experience. I have once had a cabbie
try to excuse himself by claiming that I didn't signal when I was going
straight on, on a straight road with no junctions. I really do think
they should sit an intelligence test before being allowed to drive.

>> ...you know the standard **** they come out with to
>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>
> Ooh, a little provocative there - but again, quite common on this
> newsgroup. :)

I don't know what you mean. I've not seen anyone be provocative?

[Tarcap]

"Alycidon" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:17:59 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

> > A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly,
> > just
> > not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.
>
> Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
> The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses,
> confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.
>
> It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.
>
> So how did they obtain the criminals addresses from your piece of
> "evidence"?
> I've got a funny feeling this story is going to take yet another strange
> but
> predictable turn.

Silly billy.

They are community coppers, do you honestly imagine that they don't know the
identity of the local herberts on their patch? On the unlikely chance that
they don't, all they have to do is to show the mug shots to the local school
staff and the job's a good 'un.

You would never make a detective, that's for sure.

So in fact, your "evidence" was of no further use to them - they already
knew the miscreants - you certainly couldn't identify their faces from your
video.
All you did was to "dob them in to the gaffers", the "gaffers" being the
community police in this case.

You would certainly make a very good police "grass".

I wonder how the good citizens of Hull feel about having a grass in their
midst.
I am sure you must be very popular around there.

[MrCheerful]

On 08/07/2015 07:24, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:17:59 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
>
>> > A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite
>> frankly, > just
>> > not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.
>>
>> Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
>> The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses,
>> confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.
>>
>> It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.
>>
>> So how did they obtain the criminals addresses from your piece of
>> "evidence"?
>> I've got a funny feeling this story is going to take yet another
>> strange but
>> predictable turn.
>
> Silly billy.
>
> They are community coppers, do you honestly imagine that they don't know
> the identity of the local herberts on their patch? On the unlikely
> chance that they don't, all they have to do is to show the mug shots to
> the local school staff and the job's a good 'un.
>
> You would never make a detective, that's for sure.
>
> So in fact, your "evidence" was of no further use to them - they already
> knew the miscreants - you certainly couldn't identify their faces from
> your video.
> All you did was to "dob them in to the gaffers", the "gaffers" being the
> community police in this case.
>
> You would certainly make a very good police "grass".
>
> I wonder how the good citizens of Hull feel about having a grass in
> their midst.
> I am sure you must be very popular around there.

I was surprised that there was no crowd of pitchfork wielding yokels at
his door, screaming about filming children and calling him a paediatrician.

[MrCheerful]

On 08/07/2015 00:10, Nick wrote:
> On 07/07/2015 22:48, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> On 07/07/2015 22:30, Nick wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2015 21:17, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2015 21:02, Nick wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2015 14:27, Adia wrote:
>>>>>> Nick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems some motorist are very resentful at being held
>>>>>>> responsible for
>>>>>>> their actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know why because video evidence often works two ways. Cyclist
>>>>>> head cams should also make many of them more responsible too. If a
>>>>>> cyclist plans to use their recorded video to hold a motorist
>>>>>> accountable for their actions, that video must demonstrate that their
>>>>>> own actions were beyond reproach - should it need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This assumes a symmetry that does not exist. In the vast majority of
>>>>> collisions between motorists and cyclists it is the cyclist who suffers
>>>>> the more severe damage. This asymmetry has two obvious consequences.
>>>>> Firstly motorist's are held to a higher standard than other road users.
>>>>> Many posters might not like this or think it is unfair but it is
>>>>> obviously true in our current legal system. The second obvious
>>>>> consequence is that cyclists are more likely to be seeking
>>>>> compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>> These two consequence mean that cyclists are the most likely to benefit
>>>>> from reliable camera vidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>>>>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>>>>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>>>>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>>>>> was cycling too fast", you know the standard **** they come out with to
>>>>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this is why car drivers are now getting their own cameras, the
>>>> antics that cyclists get up to are well worth getting on film.
>>>
>>> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>>>
>>>> One
>>>> today, wobbling all over the road while carrying a second bicycle, that
>>>> could probably have got money from some TV show. I would love to have
>>>> video evidence that shows them doing something really prattish in front
>>>> of me, like last night's ninja cyclist (all black and no lights or
>>>> reflectives) went to ride straight off a centre island as I was leaving
>>>> a roundabout, happily he did look and managed to stop, but it was very
>>>> close.
>>>
>>> Ooh sounds dangerous were you at risk of serious injury.
>>>
>>
>> It would have been as the rider would have come straight toward my
>> windscreen.
>
> That's amazing. On an average cycle trip I feel more threatened by a
> motorist taking excessive risks than I have ever felt threatened by any
> cyclist in my entire life as a motorist. Last year I did once feel
> slightly threatened by a cyclist who brushed past my elbow as he pasted
> me when I was walking on the pavement but I've never felt threatened in
> a car.
>
> I wonder how many motorists are injured by cyclists going through their
> windscreen. Do you have such an example of a driver sustaining a serious
> injury from your vast store of cycle related problems. This sounds like
> a serious problem that has been overlooked, something should be done!
>

You are right, cyclists should be trained, identifiable, licenced and
insured, and regulated by Police action, then the quality of their
cycling would improve and crashes would reduce.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 00:09:15 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

>
> That's amazing. On an average cycle trip I feel more threatened by a
> motorist taking excessive risks than I have ever felt threatened by any
> cyclist in my entire life as a motorist. Last year I did once feel
> slightly threatened by a cyclist who brushed past my elbow as he pasted
> me when I was walking on the pavement but I've never felt threatened in
> a car.

Even more amazing is that he did a "proper survey" at his local precinct and saw no cyclists at all in a two hour period. Maybe he also gets scared by unicorns, fairies and goblins.

[MrCheerful]

On 08/07/2015 08:28, Alycidon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 00:09:15 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> That's amazing. On an average cycle trip I feel more threatened by a
>> motorist taking excessive risks than I have ever felt threatened by any
>> cyclist in my entire life as a motorist. Last year I did once feel
>> slightly threatened by a cyclist who brushed past my elbow as he pasted
>> me when I was walking on the pavement but I've never felt threatened in
>> a car.
>
> Even more amazing is that he did a "proper survey" at his local precinct and saw no cyclists at all in a two hour period. Maybe he also gets scared by unicorns, fairies and goblins.
>

It is a bit early to be drunk, or was it an all night bender in your
'wine cellar'

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:48:30 +0100, David Lang wrote:

> That's simply because the push bike is an utterly ridiculous non viable
> form of transport, only used by a tint insignificant minority.

And proud of it!
It is not against the law to be in a tint insignificant minority which
you spend a greay significant amount of time and effort blustering over.

[Tarcap]

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 08/07/2015 08:28, Alycidon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 00:09:15 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>
>>
>> That's amazing. On an average cycle trip I feel more threatened by a
>> motorist taking excessive risks than I have ever felt threatened by any
>> cyclist in my entire life as a motorist. Last year I did once feel
>> slightly threatened by a cyclist who brushed past my elbow as he pasted
>> me when I was walking on the pavement but I've never felt threatened in
>> a car.
>
> Even more amazing is that he did a "proper survey" at his local precinct
> and saw no cyclists at all in a two hour period. Maybe he also gets scared
> by unicorns, fairies and goblins.
>

It is a bit early to be drunk, or was it an all night bender in your
'wine cellar'

I hope he's moved the old washing machine from the hole in his garage floor.
He could do himself a lot of damage on it when he falls ****ed into his wine
cellar.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 08/07/2015 16:15, Adia wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2015 23:57, Adia wrote:
>>
>>>> You just have to look at the bitterness directed at head cams by
>>>> motorists to realise it is cyclists who benefit. Up until now motorists
>>>> have relied upon benefit of the doubt. "The cyclist swerved in front of
>>>> me", "There was nothing I could do", "The cyclist didn't signal", "He
>>>> was cycling too fast"...
>>>
>>> A generalisation, but they seem quite common on this newsgroup.
>>>
>>
>> Actually all from my own personal experience. I have once had a cabbie
>> try to excuse himself by claiming that I didn't signal when I was going
>> straight on, on a straight road with no junctions. I really do think
>> they should sit an intelligence test before being allowed to drive.
>
> I don't doubt that your personal experience validifies your opinions
> on this topic, and that your criticism of motorists will be justified
> in many cases. By generalisation, I only meant it may be better to say
> 'some motorists' rather than simply 'motorists', as the latter implies
> them all.
>

No it doesn't. Motorists just means some, plural, it does not imply all
motorists without further qualification. I'm a mathematician we have the
difference between the universal and existential qualifiers drummed into
us very early on.


>>>> ...you know the standard **** they come out with to
>>>> try and wriggle out of responsibility for their actions.
>>>
>>> Ooh, a little provocative there - but again, quite common on this
>>> newsgroup. :)
>>
>> I don't know what you mean. I've not seen anyone be provocative?
>
> OK, my existing vocabulary isn't anything to be proud of, maybe a
> 'little emotive' would have been a better choice.
>
> Anyway, it wasn't my intension to appear critical of your post as
> those who believe passionately in opposing opinions also commonly
> resort to using generalisations and provocative, or should that be
> emotive, language on this newsgroup.
>
Lighten up, I was only funnin with you. Whilst provocative is fair I
think most of us are past the age when we were passionate about anything.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:28:37 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>

There is a new type of scam out there, so dashcams can help combat this as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-3147443/Sinister-crash-cash-scam-rise-people-demand-money.html

[Nick[_4_]]

On 08/07/2015 17:19, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:28:37 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>
>> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>>
>
> There is a new type of scam out there, so dashcams can help combat this as well.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-3147443/Sinister-crash-cash-scam-rise-people-demand-money.html
>

That's truly contemptible. There really is no excuse for reading the
daily mail.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 17:22:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 08/07/2015 17:19, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:28:37 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>>
>>> Or it could be to protect themselves from other motorists.
>>>
>>
>> There is a new type of scam out there, so dashcams can help combat this
>> as well.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-3147443/Sinister-crash-cash-scam-rise-people-demand-money.html
>>
>
> That's truly contemptible. There really is no excuse for reading the
> daily mail.

But but, how will I know how to avoid cancer?

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:15:20 +0100
Adia > wrote:

> Anyway, it wasn't my intension to appear critical of your post

Nor mine of yours, but "intention".

[MrCheerful]

On 10/07/2015 10:48, Adia wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:15:20 +0100
>> Adia > wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, it wasn't my intension to appear critical of your post
>>
>> Nor mine of yours, but "intention".
>
> :) I always check my work after posting and often feel such a fool
> for not doing so properly before posting. But I missed that one,
> before and after, so I am grateful for your bringing it to my
> attention, and so nicely.
>

Remember that a single typing or grammatical error can mean that your
entire post can be dismissed (by psycholists)

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 07:25:01 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
> "Alycidon" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Tuesday, 7 July 2015 22:17:59 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:
>
> > > A camera just strapped to the head of a cyclist would, quite frankly,
> > > just
> > > not be accepted, and may not even be admissible in court.
> >
> > Who said it went to court? That is just pure fabrication in your mind.
> > The police, armed with my evidence, went round to the criminals' houses,
> > confiscated their illegal bikes and had them crushed.
> >
> > It's called instant justice, like a spot fine.
> >
> > So how did they obtain the criminals addresses from your piece of
> > "evidence"?
> > I've got a funny feeling this story is going to take yet another strange
> > but
> > predictable turn.
>
> Silly billy.
>
> They are community coppers, do you honestly imagine that they don't know the
> identity of the local herberts on their patch? On the unlikely chance that
> they don't, all they have to do is to show the mug shots to the local school
> staff and the job's a good 'un.
>
> You would never make a detective, that's for sure.
>
> So in fact, your "evidence" was of no further use to them - they already
> knew the miscreants - you certainly couldn't identify their faces from your
> video.
> All you did was to "dob them in to the gaffers", the "gaffers" being the
> community police in this case.
>
> You would certainly make a very good police "grass".
>
> I wonder how the good citizens of Hull feel about having a grass in their
> midst.

> I am sure you must be very popular around there.

As you can see, the police actively encourage members of the public to report these idiots and here are the results of which I am proud to have had a hand in.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/police-issue-pictures-off-road-bikes-9679163

Good riddance.