Cyclist mows down 4 year old and scarpers

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2016 13:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Bo...ail/story.html

Some of the usual suspects will be along in a minute to explain that the
cyclist didn't stop only because he had done nothing wrong.
They probably "think" the cyclist gets extra points for hitting a
pedestrian aged under ten.

Two days on, and no one has tried to explain the act by the cyclist, or claim that he did nothing wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?

Don't be shy.

You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

On 26/01/2016 21:26, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:12:28 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Actually (and whisper it), but the more intelligent posters here reckon
the cyclists are making up the bit about the force field that protects
their heads whenever they're not wearing an approved cycling helmet.

No. It is the helmet priests that claim cycle helmets not only protect you from any and all injuries but also prevent collisions.
Their Ghods Thompson, Rivara and Thompson 'proved' that cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries so it must be true.

No, no, no... you are forgetting the famous claim that the cyclist's
head is more likely to hit the ground if he is using a cycling helmet
than if he isn't.

That can only be correct if he is protected by a personal cephalic force
field which is disabled by putting on the helmet.

On 27/01/2016 08:03, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2016 13:57, Mrcheerful wrote:

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Bo...ail/story.html

Some of the usual suspects will be along in a minute to explain that the
cyclist didn't stop only because he had done nothing wrong.
They probably "think" the cyclist gets extra points for hitting a
pedestrian aged under ten.

Two days on, and no one has tried to explain the act by the cyclist, or claim that he did nothing wrong.

They were embarrassed into silence at last.

Perhaps I should not have made that post?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?
Don't be shy.
You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

That's not very gracious of you, is it?

Even "Mr Macaw" hasn't supported "pavement cycling" on this occasion,
and that's saying something.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?

Don't be shy.

You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

Quite spectacularly so. But equally impressive is his quite evident and
sincere belief that he is intelligent and that he runs rings around
everyone on this group.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

On 27/01/2016 12:04, John Smith wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?
Don't be shy.
You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

Quite spectacularly so. But equally impressive is his quite evident and
sincere belief that he is intelligent and that he runs rings around
everyone on this group.

You still haven't said whether, in your view, the cyclist who ran into a
4-yr-old child and then scarpered did anything wrong, have you?

Why so silent on that subject?

Are you simply incapable of condemning the illegal actions of a selfish
cyclist?

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 12:46:34 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2016 12:04, John Smith wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?
Don't be shy.
You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

Quite spectacularly so. But equally impressive is his quite evident and
sincere belief that he is intelligent and that he runs rings around
everyone on this group.

You still haven't said whether, in your view, the cyclist who ran into a
4-yr-old child and then scarpered did anything wrong, have you?

Why so silent on that subject?

Because it is a stupid demand to make.

Are you simply incapable of condemning the illegal actions of a selfish
cyclist?

On 27/01/2016 14:24, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 12:46:34 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2016 12:04, John Smith wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 1:53:58 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2016 07:31, John Smith wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So did he - whoever he might have been - do soemthing wrong (in your
opinion) or not?
Don't be shy.
You're among friends.

You are an idiot.

Quite spectacularly so. But equally impressive is his quite evident and
sincere belief that he is intelligent and that he runs rings around
everyone on this group.

You still haven't said whether, in your view, the cyclist who ran into a
4-yr-old child and then scarpered did anything wrong, have you?

Why so silent on that subject?

Because it is a stupid demand to make.

TRANSLATION: "Please cut the cyclist a bit of slack; the kid was
probably out of control and almost certainly had it coming".

Let's hope nothing similar ever happens to one of yours.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:45:30 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

No, no, no... you are forgetting the famous claim that the cyclist's
head is more likely to hit the ground if he is using a cycling helmet
than if he isn't.


I have never read this claim. Can you provide a cite for it?

On 27/01/2016 19:00, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:45:30 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

No, no, no... you are forgetting the famous claim that the cyclist's
head is more likely to hit the ground if he is using a cycling helmet
than if he isn't.

I have never read this claim.

That's why you don't remember it, then.

Can you provide a cite for it?

Not off-hand. I do not maintain a box-file of such things.

But others can confirm the truth of what I say.

It was the subject of various threads here at the time (though probably
not over the last couple of years).

You can, of course, if you wish, do your own Googling.

Because if you missed it all, that's hardly my fault.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7:07:30 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2016 19:00, Simon Jester wrote:

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 11:45:30 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

No, no, no... you are forgetting the famous claim that the cyclist's
head is more likely to hit the ground if he is using a cycling helmet
than if he isn't.

I have never read this claim.

That's why you don't remember it, then.

Can you provide a cite for it?

Not off-hand. I do not maintain a box-file of such things.

But others can confirm the truth of what I say.

It was the subject of various threads here at the time (though probably
not over the last couple of years).

You can, of course, if you wish, do your own Googling.

Because if you missed it all, that's hardly my fault.

So your answer is no.
That is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned.