Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 24/10/2018 14:13, wrote:

Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html

"Crazed cyclist"

It's good to see that you endorse that description.

QUOTE:
The row started after the cyclist accused the Mercedes driver of
impeding him as they crossed a busy intersection
ENDQUOTE

The crazed *cyclist* complains of being impeded... you couldn't make it
up, could you?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html


It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of dashcam
that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that happens before the
main event.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:44:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 14:13, wrote:

Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html

"Crazed cyclist"

It's good to see that you endorse that description.

QUOTE:
The row started after the cyclist accused the Mercedes driver of
impeding him as they crossed a busy intersection
ENDQUOTE

The crazed *cyclist* complains of being impeded... you couldn't make it
up, could you?

So why did the 'victim' not show that part of the video?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html



It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of dashcam
that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that happens before the
main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 24/10/2018 23:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 5:44:52 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 14:13, wrote:

Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html

"Crazed cyclist"

It's good to see that you endorse that description.

QUOTE:
The row started after the cyclist accused the Mercedes driver of
impeding him as they crossed a busy intersection
ENDQUOTE

The crazed *cyclist* complains of being impeded... you couldn't make it
up, could you?

So why did the 'victim' not show that part of the video?

The Daily Mail (or its website) was not the victim. But the Daily Mail
chooses what it wishes to publish on its website, so perhaps that would
be a good place to start your investigation.

As it happens, though, a crazed cyclist complaining of being "impeded"
would probably not be visible to the dashcam of the vehicle he proceeded
to vandalise, would he?

See whether you can work out why that is.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html


It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of dashcam
that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that happens before
the main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

What is "footage"?

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html


It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of dashcam
that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that happens before
the main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).

The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike
were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is
hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the
"obstruction" could exist.

What is "footage"?

It is the term used of video or film sequences. It is a carry-over into
the video world from the days when all moving pictures had to be
captured on chemical film (measured by the foot).

Fancy your pretending not to know that.

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?

Are you talking about the results of:

(a) a traffic accident, or

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit of
raging pique?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html


It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of
dashcam that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that
happens before the main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).

The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike
were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is
hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the
"obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh? OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the
vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also
not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows)
for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop.

What is "footage"?

It is the term used of video or film sequences. It is a carry-over into
the video world from the days when all moving pictures had to be
captured on chemical film (measured by the foot).

Fancy your pretending not to know that.

I just wondered why you use such an outdated expression. You would also
find that the expression "video" came in with television, long after the
development of film.

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?

Are you talking about the results of:

(a) a traffic accident, or

A "traffic accident" is usually caused by a person or persons, rarely by
a sky fairy.

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit of raging pique?

Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.

I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found guilty
of a crime by a court?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:

Bish bosh - job done :-)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Mercedes.html

It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of
dashcam that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that
happens before the main event.

Was there any dashcam footage?

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike
were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is
hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the
"obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the
vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also
not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows)
for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see,
that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a
red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or
otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

What is "footage"?

It is the term used of video or film sequences. It is a carry-over
into the video world from the days when all moving pictures had to be
captured on chemical film (measured by the foot).

Fancy your pretending not to know that.

I just wondered why you use such an outdated expression.

It isn't outdated.

I hope that helps.

You would also
find that the expression "video" came in with television, long after the
development of film.

Do you mean the expression "video" as used in my explanation to you of
what "footage" is?

I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.

Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?

Are you talking about the results of:

(a) a traffic accident, or

A "traffic accident" is usually caused by a person or persons, rarely by
a sky fairy.

And?

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit
of raging pique?

Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found guilty
of a crime by a court?

Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is now
within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail!

Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:27:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail!

Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn.

QUOTE:

Please see the Evening Standard for full footage. The "professional chauffeur" failed to make a mandatory left then proceeded to tailgate dangerously close to the cyclist. When the cyclist pulled across to the left hand side of the road the "professional" wound down his left hand window and started verbal abuse while keeping pace with the cyclist.

During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again.. Attempted grievous bodily harm.

END QUOTE.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:04:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:27:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail!

Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn.

QUOTE:

Please see the Evening Standard for full footage. The "professional chauffeur" failed to make a mandatory left then proceeded to tailgate dangerously close to the cyclist. When the cyclist pulled across to the left hand side of the road the "professional" wound down his left hand window and started verbal abuse while keeping pace with the cyclist.

During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm.

END QUOTE.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html

Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:36:41 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:

During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm.

END QUOTE.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html

Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service.

The police will also not be amused at the driver's illegal and dangerous driving which will mean that their cops will probably let the chaffeur learn his lesson the hard way. Case closed.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 6:55:37 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:36:41 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:

During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm.

END QUOTE.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html

Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service.

The police will also not be amused at the driver's illegal and dangerous driving which will mean that their cops will probably let the chaffeur learn his lesson the hard way. Case closed.

The cops will not do anything. Clearly the fact that the driver went straight ahead from a left turn only lane, passed within inches of a cyclist, tries to force the cyclist to crash into a stationary vehicle, verbally an physically assaulted a cyclist was 'Just a Momentary Lapse of Concentration'.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason
why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least,
it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake
and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see,
that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a
red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or
otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when
the police saw the video they just said diddums.

...

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit
of raging pique?

Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I meant as I wrote. No more, no less.

I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found
guilty of a crime by a court?

Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is now
within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime.

Is that yes or no?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

But that latter is what you were asking for.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when
the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

...

(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit
of raging pique?

Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I meant as I wrote. No more, no less.

You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.

I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found
guilty of a crime by a court?

Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is
now within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime.

Is that yes or no?

No particular person is being accused. The unknown criminal scarpered.
No charge will be laid (and therefore no bar on case comment will
commence) until he is traced and apprehended (criminal damage is an
arrestable offence).

I suspectthat even if you didn't already know the detail, you had a fair
idea that this is how it works.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

This person has a dashcam:-
~ he decided to go public to bleat about something;
~ we only saw edited highlights.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts.

But that latter is what you were asking for.

Not in the slightest.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when
the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

The damage to the driver's pride.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have
a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

This person has a dashcam:-
~ he decided to go public to bleat about something;
~ we only saw edited highlights.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts.

Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash"
can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple
context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal
on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed").

But that latter is what you were asking for.

Not in the slightest.

Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence
from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the
car.

That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an
evasion of the issue.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when
the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

The damage to the driver's pride.

I hope so too.

But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a
criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to
your property?

And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit?

Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work).

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.

You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/2018 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.

You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.

The evidence is already there.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/18 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have
a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?

This person has a dashcam:-
~ he decided to go public to bleat about something;
~ we only saw edited highlights.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple
concepts.

Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash"
can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple
context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal
on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed").

But that latter is what you were asking for.

Not in the slightest.

Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence
from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the
car.

Quote me.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts.

That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an
evasion of the issue.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that
when the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?

The damage to the driver's pride.

I hope so too.

But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a
criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to
your property?

And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit?

Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work).

I still don't know how it works. I can't be bothered to ask for another
non-answer.

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
 

On 28/10/18 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.

You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.

Isn't it amazing how Nugent has so much difficulty grasping very simple
concepts?