On 28/05/2020 11:55, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 11:38, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/05/2020 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:


My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are
KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric.

...and?

Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over
it enough times.

You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary
data.

I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG
that they have got it wrong?

I do not drive dangerously,

You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you
drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger.

You say a lot of things. You never bother proving them.

The casualties numbers are direct evidence...

...as far as your kindergarten-level "thinking" is concerned.

If you believe it can't happen to you, you are deluding yourself.

As I said, you never bother proving any of your nonsensical assertions.

As I said, you are deluding yourself.

That's only because you can't, of course.

Prove that it won't happen when you next use your car (or any other time
in the future).

I have access to £11 million of TP insurance. The risk is considered to
be so low everybody gets the first £1m thrown in with house insurance.

Does your driving insurance work like that?

whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and
without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms.

Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way
street before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the
purpose was to avoid mingling with pedestrians?

If that was one of your admissions (or, rather, your boasts), yes.

There were others, including cycling along footways, ignoring red
traffic lights, etc.

That's very vague on your part.

Your admission was clear enough, even if a little vague as to places,
times and number of pedestrians threatened. I can only use the
information you yourself have provided, coupled with your repeated
failure to condemn acts of selfishness and sociopathy by cyclists.

I have never defended cycling on the footway. I have also not
condemned it - as you insist I should. The latter clearly means I must
be a sinner in your eyes.

You haven't condemned it, even though it is a clear offence and a clear
threat (or, as you put it, "not an advantage") to pedestrians.

There are plenty of places where it is not an offence.

"Advantage" was your word. I said that mingling with pedestrians is a
"disadvantage". The practicalities are the same whatever the law has to
say about it.

You didn't accept that going down a one way street (now legal) was a
practical method of avoiding mingling. So your claims of putting
pedestrians first are completely hollow. This goes with your remarkable
and irresponsible claim that you "threaten no-one's safety".

If you
expected to be taken seriously, you could condemn it easily. I have no
difficulty in condemning analogous illegal actions by the drivers and
riders of motor vehicles.

On the bike I have occasionally gone past a red light after taking all
care. I have also driven past red lights after misjuding the timing.
To you, the former worse than the latter because you judge intention
rather safety. You're wrong.

A mistake is a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake and everyone should be
able to understand that. I have been at pains to emphasise that mistakes
happen.

You have the attitude that law matters more than safety. If that really
was the priority, skills would have no value.

Cyclists don't generally ride through red traffic lights, along
footways, through pedestrian-only areas or the wrong way along one-way
streets because they have made a mistake. They commit those offences
deliberately and selfishly and everyone - including you - knows that.

Actually, a lot of "no cycling" in pedestrian areas has no legal force.
But even where "the law" is only for show I agree it is not necessarily
a wise or proper thing to do.

In this country the law says a person is innocent until proven guilty.
You are pre-judging the issue with what you say above. Oh how you moaned
about an off the cuff comment about a pavement driver attempting murder.