On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 24/10/2018 21:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/10/18 14:13, wrote:
Bish bosh - job done :-)
It seems professional drivers can obtain a special version of
dashcam that automagically erases the embarrassing stuff that
happens before the main event.
Was there any dashcam footage?
You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?
You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike
were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is
hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the
"obstruction" could exist.
It's reported, huh?
Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.
OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the
vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also
not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows)
for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop.
You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see,
that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a
red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or
So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.
What is "footage"?
It is the term used of video or film sequences. It is a carry-over
into the video world from the days when all moving pictures had to be
captured on chemical film (measured by the foot).
Fancy your pretending not to know that.
I just wondered why you use such an outdated expression.
It isn't outdated.
I hope that helps.
You would also
find that the expression "video" came in with television, long after the
development of film.
Do you mean the expression "video" as used in my explanation to you of
what "footage" is?
I only saw some post-incident still photographs of the damage to the
victim's property, caused by the criminal.
Can we use this when a bicycle user or pedestrian has skin and organ
damage caused by a motorist?
Are you talking about the results of:
(a) a traffic accident, or
A "traffic accident" is usually caused by a person or persons, rarely by
a sky fairy.
(b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit
of raging pique?
Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply.
You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant
and deliberate act of criminal damage.
I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found guilty
of a crime by a court?
Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is now
within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime.