A Driver

On 25/11/2019 01:34, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 23:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/11/2019 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 19:59, TMS320 wrote:

The hard part is to define what makes a "good driver".

A couple of elementary and essential characteristics would probably
be:

(a) will not drive a vehicle which does not comply with the
requirements of the law and in particular, is fitted with all
required lights and fully-working brakes (two separate systems at
that), and

(b) will never seek to make progress along a footway, the wrong way
in a one-way street or in an area where vehicles are otherwise
prohibited.

So that covers about 0.001%.

Of what?

Of being a good driver. A goldfish has a better memory than you.

Don't be so obtuse.

I had *already* said that there is a lot more to it than those two things.

So did I.

But what a pity that some classes of road-users fail at the first hurdle
and cannot be guaranteed to even try to comply with those two, eh?

And I'm not talking about pedestrians. Or drivers.
There are lots of other parts of any working definition.

Quite so. Why did you bother to reply?

Have a guess.

Here's a clue: my post was more closely on-topic for the NG.

If you didn't already know how much I value your opinions about
cyclists, it's zero.

That's the unsurprising thing about [some] cyclists: the truth really
hurts them. You'd think it would be cause for reflection and
self-perception. But it seems not.

The thing about some drivers is they can't see what a mess their own
house is in and try to put the blame on others.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:14:37 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 20:51, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 8:35:49 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 19:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2019 15:31, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 9:27:56 AM UTC, Peter Keller wrote:
On 24/11/2019 14:04, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 5:46:18 PM UTC, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:
Did this. Not some **** poor ****** who rides a silly bicycle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNUXvxjl-5k

Actually a machine operator did it. No roadsmanship was
required. How do you know the operator was not a cyclist?

That is beyond it to know.

Is Max Verstappen a driver in Pounder's 'mind'?
https://f1i.com/images/305957-max-cy...out-route.html

It means that's all he can afford to use when travelling between race
tracks. He also needs to sell drugs and burgle old peoples' homes to
make ends meet as he goes.

Point is just because you can handle the machinery does not mean you
are a good driver.

The hard part is to define what makes a "good driver".

A couple of elementary and essential characteristics would probably be:

(a) will not drive a vehicle which does not comply with the requirements
of the law and in particular, is fitted with all required lights and
fully-working brakes (two separate systems at that), and

(b) will never seek to make progress along a footway, the wrong way in a
one-way street or in an area where vehicles are otherwise prohibited.

There are lots of other parts of any working definition.

I agree.
Sadly the majority of motorists think the rules don't apply to them because they pay 'road tax'.

You know that what you say is untrue.

Wildly untrue at that.

You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting cyclists lives in danger.
The rest of the time they are just arrogant scofflaws.

Thanks for clearing that up.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 10:45:35 AM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting cyclists lives in danger.
The rest of the time they are just arrogant scofflaws.

Time for a partial list of the laws they break.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 11:01:09 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 10:45:35 AM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:
You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting cyclists lives in danger.
The rest of the time they are just arrogant scofflaws.

Time for a partial list of the laws they break.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

On topic, since the title of the thread is "A driver".

On 25/11/2019 08:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 01:34, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 23:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/11/2019 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 19:59, TMS320 wrote:

The hard part is to define what makes a "good driver".

A couple of elementary and essential characteristics would
probably be:

(a) will not drive a vehicle which does not comply with the
requirements of the law and in particular, is fitted with all
required lights and fully-working brakes (two separate systems at
that), and

(b) will never seek to make progress along a footway, the wrong
way in a one-way street or in an area where vehicles are otherwise
prohibited.

So that covers about 0.001%.

Of what?

Of being a good driver. A goldfish has a better memory than you.

Don't be so obtuse.

I had *already* said that there is a lot more to it than those two
things.

So did I.

I had said so as part of my first response (see emphasised passage
below). Despite that, you felt you had to say exactly the same thing in
order to appear "clever". You are seriously weird at times.

But what a pity that some classes of road-users fail at the first
hurdle and cannot be guaranteed to even try to comply with those two, eh?

And I'm not talking about pedestrians. Or drivers.

*****There are lots of other parts of any working definition.*****

Quite so. Why did you bother to reply?

Have a guess.
Here's a clue: my post was more closely on-topic for the NG.

If you didn't already know how much I value your opinions about
cyclists, it's zero.

That's the unsurprising thing about [some] cyclists: the truth really
hurts them. You'd think it would be cause for reflection and
self-perception. But it seems not.

The thing about some drivers is they can't see what a mess their own
house is in and try to put the blame on others.

Stamp your foot, why don't you?

it still won't mean that most cyclists are anything but a bunch of
lawless chavs with no idea of consideration for others.

On 25/11/2019 11:06, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 11:01:09 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 10:45:35 AM UTC, Simon Jester
wrote:

You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting
cyclists lives in danger. The rest of the time they are just
arrogant scofflaws.

Time for a partial list of the laws they break.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig
zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by
inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with
no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates,
overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes,
one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators,
fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly
tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one
way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus
lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess
smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash
for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare,
over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without
permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn,
using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence
application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to
stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

And not forgetting injuring 100 pedestrians a day, killing 2 of them.
And that according to Nugent they don't count when it can't be proved
that the driver was being naughty.

On topic, since the title of the thread is "A driver".

Where it concerns cyclist safety, driver behaviour is always on topic.

On 25/11/2019 12:10, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2019 08:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 01:34, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 00:15, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 23:50, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/11/2019 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2019 19:59, TMS320 wrote:

The hard part is to define what makes a "good driver".

A couple of elementary and essential characteristics would
probably be:

(a) will not drive a vehicle which does not comply with the
requirements of the law and in particular, is fitted with all
required lights and fully-working brakes (two separate systems at
that), and

(b) will never seek to make progress along a footway, the wrong
way in a one-way street or in an area where vehicles are
otherwise prohibited.

So that covers about 0.001%.

Of what?

Of being a good driver. A goldfish has a better memory than you.

Don't be so obtuse.

I had *already* said that there is a lot more to it than those two
things.

So did I.

I had said so as part of my first response (see emphasised passage
below). Despite that, you felt you had to say exactly the same thing in
order to appear "clever". You are seriously weird at times.

You obviously have a problem with being told that your "lot more" is
about 99.999%.

But what a pity that some classes of road-users fail at the first
hurdle and cannot be guaranteed to even try to comply with those two,
eh?

And I'm not talking about pedestrians. Or drivers.

*****There are lots of other parts of any working definition.*****

Quite so. Why did you bother to reply?

Have a guess.
Here's a clue: my post was more closely on-topic for the NG.

If you didn't already know how much I value your opinions about
cyclists, it's zero.

That's the unsurprising thing about [some] cyclists: the truth really
hurts them. You'd think it would be cause for reflection and
self-perception. But it seems not.

The thing about some drivers is they can't see what a mess their own
house is in and try to put the blame on others.

Stamp your foot, why don't you?

it still won't mean that most cyclists are anything but a bunch of
lawless chavs with no idea of consideration for others.

Oh well, maybe something is beginning to dawn on you.

On 25/11/2019 12:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 11:06, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 11:01:09 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 10:45:35 AM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting
cyclists lives in danger. The rest of the time they are just
arrogant scofflaws.

Time for a partial list of the laws they break.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig
zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by
inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no
car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking
on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed
monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light
abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted
windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way
street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane
abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke
and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash
fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight
limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without
permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn,
using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence
application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to
stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

And not forgetting injuring 100 pedestrians a day, killing 2 of them.
And that according to Nugent they don't count when it can't be proved
that the driver was being naughty.

On topic, since the title of the thread is "A driver".

Where it concerns cyclist safety, driver behaviour is always on topic.

Indeed, and also drivers compromising the safety to many passengers:

*TfL found 14,000 Uber trips where driver wasn’t registered to car they
drove*

Uber allowed unauthorised drivers to pick up passengers they hadn’t been
booked for in at least 14,000 trips, Transport for London (TfL) has
said. This was caused by a ‘change’ to Uber’s systems, meaning the
drivers could upload their photos to other workers’ accounts.

A spokesperson for TfL claimed that this was a ‘key issue’ in the
decision not to grant Uber London Limited a new private hire operator’s
licence after its latest application. They went on to say the incidents
‘put passenger safety and security at risk’.

The spokesperson said: ‘This means all the journeys were uninsured and
some passenger journeys took place with unlicensed drivers, one of which
had previously had their licence revoked by TfL.’


https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/25/tfl-f...8/?ito=cbshare
--
Bod

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 1:54:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
he spokesperson said: ‘This means all the journeys were uninsured and
some passenger journeys took place with unlicensed drivers, one of which
had previously had their licence revoked by TfL.’

Along with the 2 million other drivers with no insurance.
Law abiding motorists, my backside.

On 25/11/2019 13:54, Bod wrote:
On 25/11/2019 12:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2019 11:06, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 11:01:09 AM UTC, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 10:45:35 AM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:

You are right motorists only use the road tax defence for putting
cyclists lives in danger. The rest of the time they are just
arrogant scofflaws.

Time for a partial list of the laws they break.

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig
zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by
inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with
no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates,
overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one
eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog
light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted
windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way
street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane
abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke
and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash
fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight
limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without
permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn,
using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence
application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to
stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

And not forgetting injuring 100 pedestrians a day, killing 2 of them.
And that according to Nugent they don't count when it can't be proved
that the driver was being naughty.

On topic, since the title of the thread is "A driver".

Where it concerns cyclist safety, driver behaviour is always on topic.

Indeed, and also drivers compromising the safety to many passengers:

*TfL found 14,000 Uber trips where driver wasn’t registered to car they
drove*

Uber allowed unauthorised drivers to pick up passengers they hadn’t been
booked for in at least 14,000 trips, Transport for London (TfL) has
said. This was caused by a ‘change’ to Uber’s systems, meaning the
drivers could upload their photos to other workers’ accounts.

Â*A spokesperson for TfL claimed that this was a ‘key issue’ in the
decision not to grant Uber London Limited a new private hire operator’s
licence after its latest application. They went on to say the incidents
‘put passenger safety and security at risk’.

The spokesperson said: ‘This means all the journeys were uninsured and
some passenger journeys took place with unlicensed drivers, one of which
had previously had their licence revoked by TfL.’

https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/25/tfl-f...8/?ito=cbshare

This whole Uber-in-London situation has been beyond belief from the
start. Almost like a throwback to 1960 and the Welbeck Minicabs era.

The law in England and Wales now provides that wherever - outside London
- the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act applies,
those euphemistically referred to as "private hire drivers" must be
subject to licensing by the local authority, as must operators. A
license will not and must not be granted to anyone deemed not to be a
fit and proper person to hold it. A good example would be someone with a
sexual assault conviction (that's just an example).

When analogous licensing was eventually enacted in London, the same sort
of provisions were included. But Uber - crazily and rather than the
relevant authority - have been allowed to do the vetting. Of course,
when you're marking your own homework, you rarely get an answer wrong.

Transport Against London (which claims to be For London) need to regain
control of the situation and to regain direct control of the licensing
of these drivers, with Uber being totally excluded from the process
(just like other private hire companies, in fact).

Can you imagine the London General Cab Co being allowed to issue green
badges to its own drivers and to "assure" TaL that all was hunky-dory
and that they would never license an unsuitable person, honest, guv? Or
the bus companies issuing PSV licenses to their own drivers (and any
conductors who may be left)?