On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote:

Do you sleep?

On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:

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.

"Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and
crime.

Yes, you love to believe that a burglar (for instance) using a bicycle
for transport has some direct connection to cycling.


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%.

You need that AND you need to obey the law.

Then you agree that obedience gives nowhere near your previously stated 90%.

Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them.

Chavs don't think.


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

Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign
directing traffic to its left.

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


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.

No collision took place.

A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable.
Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know
this.


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...

Ah... no response.

I would only find things that reinforce my view. (Do you really believe
otherwise?) You have to change your approach and attitude from here on
if you want to change the perception others have of you.


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.

That has nothing to do with it.

That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation
of the highway.

It is noticeable that nowhere have you applied 'chav' to the driver.


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

Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let
he who is without...").

It is plain enough. Use your amazing telepathic ability if you are
having trouble.


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.

Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that
or not.

You have now agreed that skill and judgement are the primary
requirements for safety.