On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are the
stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the
guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools", one has wonder
where you think you place yourself.

No response.

It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation
by an oaf.

In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky
clean?

Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience.

You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications for
other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since none
of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a criminal
offence, however egregious.

That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as stupid
as that - are you?

...

So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been
committed by this imaginary cyclist?

What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted
robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.

Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving.

This case demonstrates otherwise.

...

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules
apply to cyclists.

If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show
this.

No quote?

You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for
the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have
made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike.

The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly
imaginary) failed thief.

I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at
least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I was
talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording - who
committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism whatsoever
whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike or from you.

I hope that's clearer.

...

As had already been remarked:

How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist
who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a
traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it?

If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving
without due care?

Are you sure you are quite sane?

You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the
law.

Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're
completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist.

You were talking (just above at least) about the cyclist who failed to
comply with the signage (the same thing the car-driver did). Neither
that visible chav on a bike nor the robber on a bike are imaginary. We
have the report to tell us that.

The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care.

That is not an automatic charge for failing to comply with a mandatory
sign. There is a perfectly adequate offence of failing to comply with a
mandatory sign - and that is the same offence as a cyclist can clearly
be seen committing early in the video (though that chav gets no
criticism from the camera-equipped loony, for some reason).

That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary
offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your
attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence.

Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs.

The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing
to comply with traffic signs.

How do you know that? How do you know he wasn't charged with both?

And come to that, are you insisting that failing to comply with
mandatory signage isn't an offence (as visibly committed by that chav on
a bike)?

...

Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't.

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed safely
and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?