On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

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.

I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.

But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without
sin cast the first stone",

Of course I am.

which gives carte blanche to criminals.

Don't confuse road conduct and crime.

...

You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material
factor.

That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald
tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

There are no signs with red borders.

Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.

...

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed
safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?

You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence,
you include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a
factor.

Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.

Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at
least 95%.

Apart from a few exceptions, road rules merely summarise in a few words
what skilled and experienced road users naturally do (not should do) in
a few common situations.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav
and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.

Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply to
him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not to
confront him about the offence?

I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other
trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac.

He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end
up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he
should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so
confrontational.

When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you
levitation is not an option.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling".

Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.

Of course I won't.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually
only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you
know you want to...

You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act,
then the act is being condoned.

Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence
is hypocrisy. You know that already.

Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving
without due care.

And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".

Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions.
We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible.
Even you.

Impartial? Oh dear.