On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote:

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

Do you sleep?

I don't care to keep navvies' hours. I never have.

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.

That's a silly wriggle, without meaning or import.

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%.

Obey the law (all of it, not just the bits you like) and the Highway
Code and you'll be 90% of the way there.

No precaution you are prepared to take can stop a random meteorite
striking you as you cycle along the Hackney Road, of course.

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

Chavs don't think.

Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet?

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.

It makes no difference. The cyclist still committed the same, visible,
obvious offence, but the loony cyclist with the camera took no exception
to that. For some reason.

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.

We are all on a collision course 100% of the time, every time we use the
road in any way at all. The trick is in knowing how to change direction
and speed at the relavent time(s).

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.

Aha... only a defensive response because you know that the Deja archive
won'tsupport 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.

You saw and heard him. The description would clearly not apply. That is
not to say that no chavs drive.

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.

That's alright. I understand that you are floundering and won't seek to
make that worse.

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.

I have not. We all are entitled to expect that other road users will
obey the law and thus behave in a defined and predictable way.