View Single Post
  #30  
Old December 13th 19, 12:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
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.


Ah, we're slowly getting there.

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.


I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.

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


The stupidity is amongst those who try to connect the crime to the
criminal's choice of transport.

...


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.


The two ARE completely different.

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.


Sigh.

I hope that's clearer.


You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material
factor.

Completely ignoring the effect on other road users, timing and road
layout. And that the driver was charged with driving without due care,
not for a rule (that you can't identify) that prohibits driving the
wrong side of an island.

I hope that's clearer.

...
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?


You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence, you
include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a factor.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav and
another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". You have
the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act
is being condoned.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home