Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 18/05/2020 13:19, Pamela wrote:
On 22:27 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father
because the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on
a scooter or skateboard and fell over after being unable
to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would they
still think she and her father was in the right?

....

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from
the start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

The alleged swearing is based on a claim by Simon Mason
and you know what a loose grip he has on facts.

I don't actually. Do tell.

Please tell me where in the following video the man is swearing and
what he says.

It's irrelevant. I was replying to your comment about "cyclists in this
group have taken the side of the father".

On 18/05/2020 13:44, Pamela wrote:

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist. At least, within
my own limitations. Back in those sweet old days I never encountered
the militant negative attitude found here towards motorists.

What is this "militant negative attitude" and where is it found?

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule
breaking by cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some
motorists who expect other road users to follow the same rules as
they do.

Only pedestrians can be affected by cyclist (mis)behaviour.

Motorists produce casualties in large numbers and break laws that
cyclists can't break. Too bad if they "get upset".

It's intriguing. Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I read
such material from a neutral point of view.

It's unfortunate but it's might not be reading neutral material. If
it's from newspapers, crime is spiralling out of control, the economy is
always going to crash next week and corona virus is killing people in
large numbers.

It happens that cyclist lists do also walk and drive and experience use
of the roads at first hand and from all angles.

On 19/05/2020 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/05/2020 13:44, Pamela wrote:

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist.Â* At least, within
my own limitations.Â* Back in those sweet old days I never encountered
the militant negative attitude found here towards motorists.

What is this "militant negative attitude" and where is it found?

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule
breaking by cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some
motorists who expect other road users to follow the same rules as
they do.

Only pedestrians can be affected by cyclist (mis)behaviour.

Motorists produce casualties in large numbers and break laws that
cyclists can't break. Too bad if they "get upset".

It's intriguing. Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I read
such material from a neutral point of view.

It's unfortunate but it'sÂ* might not be reading neutral material. If
it's from newspapers, crime is spiralling out of control, the economy is
always going to crash next week and corona virus is killing people in
large numbers.

It happens that cyclist lists do also walk and drive and experience use
of the roads at first hand and from all angles.

Which makes drivers who also cycle make better all round drivers, IMO.
They are more aware and alert to the many drivers who seem to not see
cyclists, especially when they pull out of side roads onto main roads.
Every cyclist will often have experienced this dangerous behaviour.

--
Bod

On 08:21 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 18/05/2020 13:44, Pamela wrote:

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist. At least, within
my own limitations. Back in those sweet old days I never encountered
the militant negative attitude found here towards motorists.

What is this "militant negative attitude" and where is it found?

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule breaking
by cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some motorists who
expect other road users to follow the same rules as they do.

Only pedestrians can be affected by cyclist (mis)behaviour.

Motorists produce casualties in large numbers and break laws that
cyclists can't break. Too bad if they "get upset".

It's intriguing. Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I read such
material from a neutral point of view.

It's unfortunate but it's might not be reading neutral material. If
it's from newspapers, crime is spiralling out of control, the economy is
always going to crash next week and corona virus is killing people in
large numbers.

It happens that cyclist lists do also walk and drive and experience use
of the roads at first hand and from all angles.

Your responses are rather tangential.

Perhaps you have run out of useful arguments. Alternatively perhaps your
thoughts are zigzagging but you're not aware of it, in which case you might
find find a book like this useful.

"Critical Thinking Toolkit"
https://b-ok.cc/book/3699922/cb5767 (free)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TMS320-book/dp/047065869X/

On 08:09 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 18/05/2020 13:19, Pamela wrote:
On 22:27 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because
the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her father
was in the right?

....

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from
the start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

The alleged swearing is based on a claim by Simon Mason and you know
what a loose grip he has on facts.

I don't actually. Do tell.

Please tell me where in the following video the man is swearing and
what he says.

It's irrelevant. I was replying to your comment about "cyclists in this
group have taken the side of the father".

If the man doesn't swear on the video then those who claim he does are
bearing false witness in these discussions.

The chance of the man issuing proceedings for defamation by slander is
slim, but let's hope Simon doesn't keep provoking the matter.

On 21:55 18 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 19:26 18 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal.

A guy called Mark James from London HR rang me on a company internal
phone line and read out a litany of false claims that "Judith" had
made about me at the AGM in 2011. From me using a company phone to
make multiple votes in the BBC SPOTY for Mark Cavendish, to taking
lab reagents to analyse the Ammonia content of the water in my garden
pond. Crazy times.

It would be utterly astonishing if a shareholder at the AGM of a major
multinational company spoke on behalf of a motion which went into petty
misdemeanours like misusing a phone.

Presumably it was minuted. Do you know which motion was being
discussed when all this was mentioned? Do you have the minutes for
BP's 2011 AGM?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...E/aKQB0ajwE08J

Below is the post you reference. Nugent said in a recent post, which I
also quote below, Judith explained this matter as a bit of a hoax.

What I still don't understand is how Mark James from BP's HR contacted you
by phone but didn't confirm his discussion with you by email or enter a
file note on your record. After all, an HR person does not have the
authority to absolve an employee on their own personal whim but would
record what did or did not happen to ensure everything was done properly.

In otehr words, if any information had been handed to Mark James formally
then it would be processed formally.

So do you have any documentation (in addition to those missing 2011 AGM
minutes) which confirm your alleged phone call took place?

The contents of your draft book, which you posted online, denonstrate you
have a somewhat loose grip on reality at the best of times and I wonder if
this AGM/phone story is another example.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/bezyz...final.pdf/file


=================== START JUDITH ==================
As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers) to
raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM will
most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking at 12
April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together - it
sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158987906400
================= END JUDITH ================

=============== START NUGENT ================
In reality, though, that simply didn't happen. It was a pure wind-up.

All that happened was that the poster Judith said she was going to do
it. But she didn't.

In those days, I used a valid email address in my usenet details (no
longer!) and Judith emailed to tell me that no-one had been down to
London and that no-one had been to the BP AGM.

I had no reason to disbelieve that. Travelling to London - from where I
understood Judith to live - would have been an expensive trip, and in
any case, there would have been no question of gaining access to the
AGM of a large public company without some proof of entitlement to be
there. IIRC, Jusith did make some reference to buying (literally) a few
BP shares to be able to get in (as part of the wind-up), but again, I
don't believe that it ever happened.

In those days, I had quite a few emails from various people in ukrc,
some of them quite surprising. I wish I still had that email account
(but I don't).

Clearly, there were (and in at least one case, still is) posters who
had and have an exaggerated impression of their own importance and
relevance.

Openly and repeatedly boasting of being paid overtime for other duties
whilst posting to usenet was probably not a wise thing to do. It was
clearly rankling with some. I never believed it. There always seemed
something odd about it.

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158987910700
================= END NUGENT ===============

On 19/05/2020 10:29, Pamela wrote:
On 08:09 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 18/05/2020 13:19, Pamela wrote:
On 22:27 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because
the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her father
was in the right?

....

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from
the start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

The alleged swearing is based on a claim by Simon Mason and you know
what a loose grip he has on facts.

I don't actually. Do tell.

Please tell me where in the following video the man is swearing and
what he says.

It's irrelevant. I was replying to your comment about "cyclists in this
group have taken the side of the father".

If the man doesn't swear on the video then those who claim he does are
bearing false witness in these discussions.

The chance of the man issuing proceedings for defamation by slander is
slim, but let's hope Simon doesn't keep provoking the matter.

Perhaps the cyclists can get you for libel with your claim "that they
have taken the side of the father".

Pamela wrote:

...if you go to the radio ham group, members still posting there
these days did take their differences to court and one was fined. See:

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/n...r-online-spat/

How could people of their age mange to let their differences of
opinion escalate to that extent? It is almost unbelievable the lengths
some people will go to in their efforts to ensure that they 'win', as
they see it.

People say "...but names can never hurt me", yet that is only true
when you make sure it is. You can't control what other people say
and do, but you can always control how you respond.

On 19/05/2020 10:01, Pamela wrote:
On 08:21 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 18/05/2020 13:44, Pamela wrote:

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist. At least,
within my own limitations. Back in those sweet old days I never
encountered the militant negative attitude found here towards
motorists.

What is this "militant negative attitude" and where is it found?

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule
breaking by cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some
motorists who expect other road users to follow the same rules as
they do.

Only pedestrians can be affected by cyclist (mis)behaviour.

Motorists produce casualties in large numbers and break laws that
cyclists can't break. Too bad if they "get upset".

It's intriguing. Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I
read such material from a neutral point of view.

It's unfortunate but it's might not be reading neutral material.
If it's from newspapers, crime is spiralling out of control, the
economy is always going to crash next week and corona virus is
killing people in large numbers.

It happens that cyclist lists do also walk and drive and experience
use of the roads at first hand and from all angles.

Your responses are rather tangential.

Perhaps you have run out of useful arguments.

You haven't addressed anything I said. Oh well, nothing to see, move on.

Alternatively perhaps
your thoughts are zigzagging but you're not aware of it, in which
case you might find find a book like this useful.

"Critical Thinking Toolkit" https://b-ok.cc/book/3699922/cb5767
(free) https://www.amazon.co.uk/TMS320-book/dp/047065869X/

To get from A to B successfully I work from a few basic rules, past
experiences and ability to deal with **** happening. Stangely enough, as
I have got older, **** seems to have been happening less often. From
your exalted position, perhaps you can suggest what I must be doing wrong.

On 10:47 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 19/05/2020 10:29, Pamela wrote:
On 08:09 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 18/05/2020 13:19, Pamela wrote:
On 22:27 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because
the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her
father was in the right?

....

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from
the start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

The alleged swearing is based on a claim by Simon Mason and you know
what a loose grip he has on facts.

I don't actually. Do tell.

Please tell me where in the following video the man is swearing and
what he says.

It's irrelevant. I was replying to your comment about "cyclists in
this group have taken the side of the father".

If the man doesn't swear on the video then those who claim he does are
bearing false witness in these discussions.

The chance of the man issuing proceedings for defamation by slander is
slim, but let's hope Simon doesn't keep provoking the matter.

Perhaps the cyclists can get you for libel with your claim "that they
have taken the side of the father".


Simon has alleged the man committed a public order offence. Simon also
provided own false testimony. See:

MID

It is not libel for me to say cyclists have taken the side of the father.