Clear threat to kill from a racist cyclist

On 30.09.2017 09:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/17 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2017 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/09/17 15:10, JNugent wrote:

6. The cyclist broke the law (what a shock!) by failing to comply
with a give-way sign and carriageway marking.

What law?

Te Road Traffic ACts.

OK. I haven't noticed the Highway Code pointing to references before.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/16/made
"No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003
nearer to the major road at the side of which that line is placed, or
if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so as to
be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other
vehicle or to cause that driver to change the speed or course of his
vehicle in order to avoid an accident."

In other words, anybody that has ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the
road has broken this law. I wonder what the penalty is and whether
anybody has *ever* been successfully prosecuted for it when a crash
has not occurred.

At least the Highway Code is pragmatic about it and accepts that
people (not just on bicycles) pull out and instructs that allowances
should be made.

It doesn't surprise anyone to hear that cyclists don't know that it
is compulsory to cede priority at such points.

The taxi driver was first up with the abuse by sounding the horn
incorrectly and unnecessarily. Then the silly driver decided to
stop for a chat.

Not the issue at all. The cyclist's typically arrogant
faiulure/refusal to obey the law is the issue.

It is the issue. Read the thread title. The driver put it on himself:
he did not need to hoot and he did not need to stop for a chat. He
would not have had it been another motor vehicle.

It was a perfectly routine and straightfoward situation.

Unfortunately, that is more true than false. It is very common for
cyclists to break the law.

But fortunately cyclist behaviour rarely endangers others.

Most people just carry on and don't worry about it.

Most people detest cyclists.
Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law breaking
cyclists. Take a look at the comments and then take your head out of your
arse and see if you can handle the scorn and dislike that most people have
for scum cyclists.



I can handle it.

On 29/09/17 21:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law breaking
cyclists.

....and compare to the almost completely ignored 5800 foot travellers per
year killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles.

Which is likely to be a more accurate reflection of things?

Peter Keller wrote:
On 30.09.2017 09:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/17 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2017 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/09/17 15:10, JNugent wrote:

6. The cyclist broke the law (what a shock!) by failing to comply
with a give-way sign and carriageway marking.

What law?

Te Road Traffic ACts.

OK. I haven't noticed the Highway Code pointing to references
before.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/16/made "No
vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003
nearer to the major road at the side of which that line is placed,
or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so
as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any
other vehicle or to cause that driver to change the speed or course
of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident."

In other words, anybody that has ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the
road has broken this law. I wonder what the penalty is and whether
anybody has *ever* been successfully prosecuted for it when a crash
has not occurred.

At least the Highway Code is pragmatic about it and accepts that
people (not just on bicycles) pull out and instructs that allowances
should be made.

It doesn't surprise anyone to hear that cyclists don't know that it
is compulsory to cede priority at such points.

The taxi driver was first up with the abuse by sounding the horn
incorrectly and unnecessarily. Then the silly driver decided to
stop for a chat.

Not the issue at all. The cyclist's typically arrogant
faiulure/refusal to obey the law is the issue.

It is the issue. Read the thread title. The driver put it on
himself: he did not need to hoot and he did not need to stop for a
chat. He would not have had it been another motor vehicle.

It was a perfectly routine and straightfoward situation.

Unfortunately, that is more true than false. It is very common for
cyclists to break the law.

But fortunately cyclist behaviour rarely endangers others.

Most people just carry on and don't worry about it.

Most people detest cyclists.
Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law
breaking cyclists. Take a look at the comments and then take your
head out of your arse and see if you can handle the scorn and
dislike that most people have for scum cyclists.



I can handle it.

You have little choice.

TMS320 wrote:
On 29/09/17 21:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law
breaking cyclists.

...and compare to the almost completely ignored 5800 foot travellers
per year killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles.

Which is likely to be a more accurate reflection of things?

The same old boring reply ....................... "but wot about those
'orrible motorists"
Weaseling detected.

On 29/09/2017 20:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/17 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2017 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/09/17 15:10, JNugent wrote:

6. The cyclist broke the law (what a shock!) by failing to comply
with a give-way sign and carriageway marking.

What law?

Te Road Traffic ACts.

OK. I haven't noticed the Highway Code pointing to references before.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/16/made
"No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003 nearer
to the major road at the side of which that line is placed, or if that
line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so as to be likely
to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to
cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order
to avoid an accident."

In other words, anybody that has ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the
road has broken this law.

That does not follow at all. And neither does any snide implication that
it was reasonable or acceptable for the cyclist to fail to give way (up
to and including stopping) so as not to "cause [a] driver to change the
speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident".

I wonder what the penalty is and whether
anybody has *ever* been successfully prosecuted for it when a crash has
not occurred.

For failing to give way at the exit from a minor road onto a major road?

Ask yourself the quesion "would you do it if a police car was
approaching rather than a taxi?".

At least the Highway Code is pragmatic about it and accepts that people
(not just on bicycles) pull out and instructs that allowances should be
made.

It doesn't surprise anyone to hear that cyclists don't know that it is
compulsory to cede priority at such points.

The taxi driver was first up with the abuse by sounding the horn
incorrectly and unnecessarily. Then the silly driver decided to stop
for a chat.

Not the issue at all. The cyclist's typically arrogant
faiulure/refusal to obey the law is the issue.

It is the issue. Read the thread title. The driver put it on himself: he
did not need to hoot and he did not need to stop for a chat. He would
not have had it been another motor vehicle.

Two non-sequiturs in the same sentence there. And nothing to back up
your assertions, whereas the lived experience of every road-user knows
your assertions to be unsound.

It was a perfectly routine and straightfoward situation.

Unfortunately, that is more true than false. It is very common for
cyclists to break the law.

But fortunately cyclist behaviour rarely endangers others.

There could have been severe damage to the bodywork of that taxi had the
cyclist miscalculated just a little more than he did. He was relying
upon a law-abiding road-user to allow him (the scofflaw cyclist) to
break the law. He wouldn't gave done it if the approaching vehicle was a
police car or a big heavy lorry.

Most people just carry on and don't worry about it.

There is no reason why yobs on bikes should not be remonstrated with and
reminded that they are anti-social turds, is there?

On 30/09/2017 11:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 29/09/17 21:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law breaking
cyclists.

...and compare to the almost completely ignored 5800 foot travellers per
year killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles.

Estimated, guessed or just fabricated (and for what possible purpose,
other than trying to win an argument)?

It is nearly four times greater than the number of pedestran fatailities
in the latest year for which figures are available.
Which is likely to be a more accurate reflection of things?

The one that's not incorrect?

Just for clarity, that was Mr Pounder's post.

On 01.10.2017 04:51, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On 30.09.2017 09:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/17 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2017 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/09/17 15:10, JNugent wrote:

6. The cyclist broke the law (what a shock!) by failing to comply
with a give-way sign and carriageway marking.

What law?

Te Road Traffic ACts.

OK. I haven't noticed the Highway Code pointing to references
before.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/16/made "No
vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003
nearer to the major road at the side of which that line is placed,
or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so
as to be likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any
other vehicle or to cause that driver to change the speed or course
of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident."

In other words, anybody that has ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the
road has broken this law. I wonder what the penalty is and whether
anybody has *ever* been successfully prosecuted for it when a crash
has not occurred.

At least the Highway Code is pragmatic about it and accepts that
people (not just on bicycles) pull out and instructs that allowances
should be made.

It doesn't surprise anyone to hear that cyclists don't know that it
is compulsory to cede priority at such points.

The taxi driver was first up with the abuse by sounding the horn
incorrectly and unnecessarily. Then the silly driver decided to
stop for a chat.

Not the issue at all. The cyclist's typically arrogant
faiulure/refusal to obey the law is the issue.

It is the issue. Read the thread title. The driver put it on
himself: he did not need to hoot and he did not need to stop for a
chat. He would not have had it been another motor vehicle.

It was a perfectly routine and straightfoward situation.

Unfortunately, that is more true than false. It is very common for
cyclists to break the law.

But fortunately cyclist behaviour rarely endangers others.

Most people just carry on and don't worry about it.

Most people detest cyclists.
Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law
breaking cyclists. Take a look at the comments and then take your
head out of your arse and see if you can handle the scorn and
dislike that most people have for scum cyclists.



I can handle it.

You have little choice.


And loving it.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport, and we all know that YOU think bicyclists are
the ****witted pits of humanity.
I really feel complimented by that, because YOU said it.

On 01/10/17 00:18, JNugent wrote:
On 30/09/2017 11:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 29/09/17 21:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law breaking
cyclists.

...and compare to the almost completely ignored 5800 foot travellers
per year killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles.

Estimated, guessed or just fabricated (and for what possible purpose,
other than trying to win an argument)?

Actual, actually. On top of the 19000 a year slightly injured.

On 02/10/2017 10:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/10/17 00:18, JNugent wrote:
On 30/09/2017 11:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 29/09/17 21:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Just look on any press reports of pedestrians being hurt by law
breaking
cyclists.

...and compare to the almost completely ignored 5800 foot travellers
per year killed or seriously injured by motor vehicles.

Estimated, guessed or just fabricated (and for what possible purpose,
other than trying to win an argument)?

Actual, actually. On top of the 19000 a year slightly injured.

Is that across the galaxy or just the solar system?

On 01/10/17 00:12, JNugent wrote:
On 29/09/2017 20:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/09/17 12:21, JNugent wrote:
On 28/09/2017 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/09/17 15:10, JNugent wrote:

6. The cyclist broke the law (what a shock!) by failing to comply
with a give-way sign and carriageway marking.

What law?

Te Road Traffic ACts.

OK. I haven't noticed the Highway Code pointing to references before.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...lation/16/made
"No vehicle shall cross the transverse line shown in diagram 1003 nearer
to the major road at the side of which that line is placed, or if that
line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so as to be likely
to endanger the driver of or any passenger in any other vehicle or to
cause that driver to change the speed or course of his vehicle in order
to avoid an accident."

In other words, anybody that has ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the
road has broken this law.

That does not follow at all.

If you're going to reply to something then write a sentence that
follows. Are you trying to say that you disagree that anybody that has
ever taken a wheeled vehicle on the road has broken this law?

And neither does any snide implication that
it was reasonable or acceptable for the cyclist to fail to give way (up
to and including stopping) so as not to "cause [a] driver to change the
speed or course of his vehicle in order to avoid an accident".

That does not follow from the statement that everybody will have done
the so called "crime" in question. Just because everybody does something
it doesn't have to imply that it is a proper thing to do.

I wonder what the penalty is and whether anybody has *ever* been
successfully prosecuted for it when a crash has not occurred.

For failing to give way at the exit from a minor road onto a major road?

I didn't raise it as a question but since you asked do have an answer? I
very much doubt it.

Ask yourself the quesion "would you do it if a police car was
approaching rather than a taxi?".

It doesn't make any difference unless the action is completely
intentional. I don't know about you but I thought the usual process at a
give way line is to make a spatial judgement.

At least the Highway Code is pragmatic about it and accepts that
people (not just on bicycles) pull out and instructs that allowances
should be made.

It doesn't surprise anyone to hear that cyclists don't know that it
is compulsory to cede priority at such points.

The taxi driver was first up with the abuse by sounding the horn
incorrectly and unnecessarily. Then the silly driver decided to stop
for a chat.

Not the issue at all. The cyclist's typically arrogant
faiulure/refusal to obey the law is the issue.

It is the issue. Read the thread title. The driver put it on himself:
he did not need to hoot and he did not need to stop for a chat. He
would not have had it been another motor vehicle.

Two non-sequiturs in the same sentence there. And nothing to back up
your assertions, whereas the lived experience of every road-user knows
your assertions to be unsound.

I can only see a random collection of words.

It was a perfectly routine and straightfoward situation.

Unfortunately, that is more true than false. It is very common for
cyclists to break the law.

But fortunately cyclist behaviour rarely endangers others.

There could have been severe damage to the bodywork of that taxi had the
cyclist miscalculated just a little more than he did. He was relying
upon a law-abiding road-user to allow him (the scofflaw cyclist) to
break the law. He wouldn't gave done it if the approaching vehicle was a
police car or a big heavy lorry.

Most people just carry on and don't worry about it.

There is no reason why yobs on bikes should not be remonstrated with and
reminded that they are anti-social turds, is there?

Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for a driver to overtake and
obstruct a person on a bicycle? Oh, doesn't the law frown on obstruction?