On 18/04/2019 13:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/04/2019 12:54, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2019 09:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/04/2019 02:59, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2019 19:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/04/2019 10:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2019 09:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/04/2019 00:25, JNugent wrote:
On 16/04/2019 20:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/04/2019 17:50, Simon Jester wrote:

If I drive through a red traffic light in my car, which
class of road users has broken the law? A: Pedestrian
B: Cyclist C: Motorist D: Train Passenger E: Golfer

No mention of motorists he-

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/re...ading-15980797



"The 20-year-old man was walking in Blenheim Road when
three offenders got out of a car parked at the side of the
road and walked towards him."

Had they ALL been driving? In fact, had ANY of them been
driving? If your attempt at an answer to either question is a
tentaive "Yes", please explain how you came to your
conclusion.

Unless they had found an abandoned car to camp in, it is an
obvious yes.

Is it? You haven't explained your (heh!) "reasoning" for that.

So... how do you know (that's "know" rather than "suggest" or
"blindly believe") that they weren't all passive passengers who
had never either learned or even attempted to drive? Do you even
know which doors of the parked car they each emerged from?

Of course! There must have been five of them.

Why?

The driver was there under threat and the fifth was there to make
that when the three got out the driver didn't do a runner.

What evidence do you have (or imagine you have) that any of the THREE
Â*was the driver of the car?

Go on...

Well, you have made it very obvious you can't read.

Hardly.What I am doing is piointing out your lack of logic and your
jumping to conclusions.

There is nothing in the sentence fragment "...three offenders got out
of a car parked at the side of the road.." which either says or means
that one of them had been driving.

So obvious that it reinforces how daft you are.

Oh dear... can't think of a sensible answer, can you?

I will leave you to describe a possible scenario that leaves an
innocent driver.

The driver - whether innocent or not (that doesn't matter) was not one
of the three who got out of the car?

I do not expect accuracy from the press but I expect it would have been
noted. Also very unlikely.

Why?

If the string had read "...three offenders got off a bus stopped at
the side of the road...", would you still insist that one of them was
the driver?

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/re...t-run-15995656

"The 35-year-old man, from Staines, died at the scene after
he was involved in a collision with a vehicle... Officers
believe the vehicle failed to stop..."

What do you find difficult to comprehend in that?

What do you find difficult?

Nothing in this thread so far, except for your "reasoning".

Of course, I'm not the one trying to call anyone a "motorist"
when there's no evidence they have ever sat behind the wheel of a
motor vehicle.

Obviously, the pedestrian was run over by a self driving car.

What do you find difficult in the report as it is written?

Why do you struggle to understand that cars don't do any of the
things described (yet)?

Why was it worthy of comment?

I was replying to Simon.

Fair enough. In that case you didn't have to make sense.

The fact is that you did not need to butt in.

This isn't your email account.