On 12/12/2018 08:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 02:08, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 22:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.

I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding
on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another
cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a
Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and
hold your breath.

Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize?

It was a sarky reply to your effort.

A failed sarky reply, you mean.

Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between
riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the
pavement by a different person at a different time and place.

There was no conection between them except for the fact that they
both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted)
offences by cyclists.

When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for
motor vehicles?

No, that just isn't in the same league as your previous attempt at a
non-sequitur. You'll have to think of a better one if you're going to
top your effort of a day or two back (which is still on track for the
annual award).

Nugent's standard response. Make up up a paragraph using lots of random
words.

You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's
correct fact to a collision on the pavement.

I did not.

Well, we are are nearly into pantomine season.

No, that's not even out of the startiung blocks. Hardly a non-sequitur
at all, in fact.

But still, the panto season approaches, as you say. And that's lucky for
you, as it's the only time of the year when you can get the employment
for which you are ideally suited.

One question, though: are you the front end or the rear end? Perhps
you're skilled enough to play both ends at once.

You certainly don't get the job of leading the community singing from
the roll-down lyric sheet due to your poor reading and comprehension skills.

Do you want to start again and try to see where you went wrong?

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was
one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

" The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are
doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates
onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of
the word "or".