Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
|
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
|
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. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com