On 17/09/2020 10:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/09/2020 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 22:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 21:00, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 20:41, JNugent wrote:
On 16/09/2020 19:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/09/2020 11:35, JNugent wrote:

You (and certain others hereabouts) need to stop bandying words
about and start understanding the law and the issues.

This is not a cycling group,

No, I haven't thought so for a long time, either.

not a legal one so there is no need whatsoever to restrict words
to legal definitions.

If you are keen to see convictions for dangerous driving, you need
to realise that that is a legal matter.

I vote for this to be entered for stupid comment of the year.

Hardly.

Oh yes.

You didn't even *know* that "dangerous driving" is a legal
construct, hence your disinclination to think of it in a legal context.

The law does not have a monopoly on particular words.

You complained of there being few convictions for dangerous driving.

Then you try to say that you didn't mean that in a legal sense.

My precise phrase was -

"Though as we know, it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous
driving."

You started wittering on about there being no such thing as dangerous
driving unless the law finds culprit to be guilty.

"Dangerous driving" is a legal construct and is defined (at present*)
within Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

[* It was defined in a different Act or series of Acts before that. I
say that because we know that you have a default setting where you
believe that anything illegal under a relatively recent Act was not
illegal before that recent Act came into force.]

Your terminology - apparently you need to be reminded of this because
you've forgotten it already - was:

QUOTE:
....it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving...
ENDQUOTE

That is purely a reference to the offence of "dangerous driving" under
Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is *only* within that context
that the concept of being "convicted of dangerous driving" exists.

It is therefore disingenuous and dishonest of you to try now to insist
that you were not really trying to make a point about dangerous driving
within the meaning of the Act. You *were* doing *exactly* that and are
now trying to wriggle out of having said some silly things.

You're claiming that the law has a monopoly on words.

In the interpretation of law, it has!

And *law* determines how and whether anyone may be "convicted of
dangerous driving".

Not passing or armchair-bound cyclist would-be pundits such as yourself.

What, pray, is a non-legal conviction of a crime?

You have just added a question mark after a string of random words.

That is rubbish, as the above now shows you (again).

If you didn't mean to refer to the subject convictions under Section 2
of the 1988 Act, you shouldn't have written:

QUOTE:
it is almost impossible to be convicted of dangerous driving
ENDQUOTE

....because that is the only context in which your string of words could
ever make the slightest sense.