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 10/12/2019 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 09:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 01:43, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

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

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong
side of the previous island?

Is there anything in the Highway Code about it? I couldn't
find anything in a quick scan.

Then do a slow scan.

Can't be bothered. It's only an arrow on a post.

And a traffic island.

Shrug. The straightforward thing don't blunder through when it
is not clear.

Is there a challenge to rearrange that jumble of words into a
little-known phrase or saying?

Well, you always claim to know what a person is thinking and write your
your version. This one should be easy.

...

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. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a
hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by?

...

You're condoning a driver's dangerous manouevre.

I am taking note of the fact that he had a partial defence in
mitigation, which the report states was *accepted* by the court.

Eh?

Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

He had been the victim of a crime committed by a cyclist. That is
official, accepted by the judge (according to that very hostile
cyclist who created the video).

Eh?

Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?

You're even more doolally than usual.

Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre
when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out
the same offence.

Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both
occasions (separated by a few seconds).

Whichever rules...?

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.

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?

Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and
safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always
negated when a lesser rule is broken.

TRANSLATION:
Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot injure anyone.