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?

...
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.

...
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.

The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly
imaginary) failed thief.

...
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.

Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're
completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist.

The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care.

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.

The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing
to comply with traffic signs.

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

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?