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.

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

So was that.

Fool or hypocrite?

Yes, on reflection, one of those probably fits you slightly better than
"oaf". Ther's not much in it though.

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.

Very well. I hadn't watched beyond the 30 seconds covering the
driver's dangerous manouevre round the island.

But you have now, and you now know that the attempted robbery by a
cyclist has been accepted as factual by the court.

And yet there you were ranting on about the driver when you didn't even
know about that, even though the evidence was there, as available to you
as to anyone else.

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.

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.

...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Translation: Cyclists are good targets for being made into scapegoats.

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