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.

They were discrete examples of obvious danger to pedestrians caused by
cyclists, one of them a case of injury caused to a child on the footway
immediately outside a garden gate.

What on earth could make anyone normal think that one example was
directly connected to the other?

You are definitely still well in front of the field for Non-Sequitur of
the Year 2018. With only 20 days to go, any challenger would have to be
even more spectacularly wrong than you were, so it's looking as though
you have the title in the bag. Congratulations in advance.