A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 10th 19, 01:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 09:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 01:43, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong side
of the previous island?

Is there anything in the Highway Code about it? I couldn't
find anything in a quick scan.

Then do a slow scan.

Can't be bothered. It's only an arrow on a post.


And a traffic island.


Shrug. The straightforward thing don't blunder through when it
is not clear.


Is there a challenge to rearrange that jumble of words into a
little-known phrase or saying?

In fact, the offence would be exactly the same in either case.

I have been overtaken on a couple of occasions by somebody going
the wrong side. On which occasions that it was perfectly safe to do
so.

Highway signage is there to be complied with. That particularly
applies to "Keep Left" and "No Entry" signs.

You... er... do know what those are, do you?

I can recognise when a road user does something "wrong" safely and
when doing something "right" unsafely. I always prefer the former.


You don't know what they are or what they mean?


I know what an arrow means, thank you. I also know that the shape and
colour of a sign emphasises its official importance. I also have
sufficient sense to recognise when failing to follow the sign actually
matters.

That at least explains something about you and people like you.


You have no idea about me or people like me. But perhaps some people
don't come across as the stickler you claim to be.

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the stickler you
claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the guidance of the wise and
the obedience of fools", one has wonder where you think you place yourself.

Many cyclists seem not to.

Sigh ...the usual it's the driver doing something wrong but it's the
cyclist's fault.


Wake up!


Is that the best you can do?

Whatever the driver is alleged to have done was also done by a cyclist
a couple of seconds earlier (it's there on the video).


The driver not only broke rule 144 but also intended to cross the mouth
of a junction on the wrong side of the road. The latter is a folly on
its own even without the risk of causing a head on crash.

You're condoning a driver's dangerous manouevre.


I am taking note of the fact that he had a partial defence in
mitigation, which the report states was *accepted* by the court.

He had been the victim of a crime committed by a cyclist. That is
official, accepted by the judge (according to that very hostile cyclist
who created the video).

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?

Or was that too Totally Different [TM]?

Or was that Totally Different [TM]?

Yes, one of them wasn't following rule 144.

That's an unusual but pleasant silence.


Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both
occasions (separated by a few seconds).

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to
cyclists.
Ads
  #22  
Old December 10th 19, 05:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,565
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 09:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 01:43, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong side
of the previous island?

Is there anything in the Highway Code about it? I couldn't
find anything in a quick scan.

Then do a slow scan.

Can't be bothered. It's only an arrow on a post.

And a traffic island.


Shrug. The straightforward thing don't blunder through when it
is not clear.


Is there a challenge to rearrange that jumble of words into a
little-known phrase or saying?


Well, you always claim to know what a person is thinking and write your
your version. This one should be easy.

...

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the stickler
you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the guidance of the
wise and the obedience of fools", one has wonder where you think you
place yourself.


No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a
hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by?

...

You're condoning a driver's dangerous manouevre.


I am taking note of the fact that he had a partial defence in
mitigation, which the report states was *accepted* by the court.


Eh?

He had been the victim of a crime committed by a cyclist. That is
official, accepted by the judge (according to that very hostile cyclist
who created the video).


Eh?

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?


You're even more doolally than usual.

The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre
when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out
the same offence.

Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both
occasions (separated by a few seconds).


Whichever rules...?

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to
cyclists.


If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this.

Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and
safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always
negated when a lesser rule is broken.
  #23  
Old December 10th 19, 05:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,724
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:23:23 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 18:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:14:55 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 17:58, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:20:46 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 17:02, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:34:52 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong side of the
previous island?

Or was that Totally Different [TM]?

Do you condone or condemn the drivers actions?

Whichever it was, I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way.

Wouldn't you?

Condoning or condemning the drivers actions are the only options available to you.
Which is it?

I haven't got all the evidence. Have you?

I repeat, though: I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way.

But you wouldn't, would you?

Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? It is a simple question and all necessary evidence is in the video.

What is the evidence?


Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions?


On what evidence?


The evidence in the video.


Obviously, you will condemn anyone on no evidence at all, but most of us
are not prepared to do that.


Now, once again, do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Those are the only options available to you. Providing you leave the goalposts where they are that is.




  #24  
Old December 11th 19, 12:46 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 10/12/2019 17:50, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:23:23 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 18:20, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:14:55 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 17:58, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:20:46 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 17:02, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:34:52 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong side of the
previous island?

Or was that Totally Different [TM]?

Do you condone or condemn the drivers actions?

Whichever it was, I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way.

Wouldn't you?

Condoning or condemning the drivers actions are the only options available to you.
Which is it?

I haven't got all the evidence. Have you?

I repeat, though: I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way.

But you wouldn't, would you?

Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? It is a simple question and all necessary evidence is in the video.

What is the evidence?

Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions?


On what evidence?


The evidence in the video.


Even according to the loony who posted the video, that is not all the
evidence accepted as true by the court... is it?

Obviously, you will condemn anyone on no evidence at all, but most of us
are not prepared to do that.


Now, once again, do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Those are the only options available to you. Providing you leave the goalposts where they are that is.


Let's have ALL the evidence here, out in the open.
  #25  
Old December 11th 19, 12:48 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 09:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 01:43, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong
side of the previous island?

Is there anything in the Highway Code about it? I couldn't
find anything in a quick scan.

Then do a slow scan.

Can't be bothered. It's only an arrow on a post.

And a traffic island.

Shrug. The straightforward thing don't blunder through when it
is not clear.


Is there a challenge to rearrange that jumble of words into a
little-known phrase or saying?


Well, you always claim to know what a person is thinking and write your
your version. This one should be easy.

...

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the stickler
you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the guidance of the
wise and the obedience of fools", one has wonder where you think you
place yourself.


No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a
hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by?

...

You're condoning a driver's dangerous manouevre.


I am taking note of the fact that he had a partial defence in
mitigation, which the report states was *accepted* by the court.


Eh?


Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

He had been the victim of a crime committed by a cyclist. That is
official, accepted by the judge (according to that very hostile
cyclist who created the video).


Eh?


Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?


You're even more doolally than usual.


Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.

The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre
when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out
the same offence.

Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both
occasions (separated by a few seconds).


Whichever rules...?

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply
to cyclists.


If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this.


How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who
is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic
island with a "Keep left" sign on it?

Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and
safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always
negated when a lesser rule is broken.


TRANSLATION:
Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot injure anyone.

  #26  
Old December 11th 19, 04:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,565
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:


On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss


...

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the
stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the
guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools", one has
wonder where you think you place yourself.


No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool
or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by?


Fool or hypocrite?

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the
driver?


You're even more doolally than usual.


Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.


Very well. I hadn't watched beyond the 30 seconds covering the
driver's dangerous manouevre round the island.

So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been
committed by this imaginary cyclist?

The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a
manouevre when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a
cyclist carried out the same offence.


...

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules
apply to cyclists.


If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show
this.


No quote?

How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist
who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a
traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it?


If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving
without due care? That is much harder to determine than the breaking of
a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your
attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence.

Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly
and safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not
always negated when a lesser rule is broken.


TRANSLATION: Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot
injure anyone.


Translation: Cyclists are good targets for being made into scapegoats.
  #27  
Old December 11th 19, 05:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:


On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss


...

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the stickler
you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the guidance of the
wise and the obedience of fools", one has wonder where you think
you place yourself.

No response.


It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation by
an oaf.

Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool
or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by?


So was that.

Fool or hypocrite?


Yes, on reflection, one of those probably fits you slightly better than
"oaf". Ther's not much in it though.

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?

You're even more doolally than usual.


Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video.


Very well. I hadn't watched beyond the 30 seconds covering the
driver's dangerous manouevre round the island.


But you have now, and you now know that the attempted robbery by a
cyclist has been accepted as factual by the court.

And yet there you were ranting on about the driver when you didn't even
know about that, even though the evidence was there, as available to you
as to anyone else.

So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been
committed by this imaginary cyclist?


What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted
robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.

The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre
when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried
out the same offence.


...

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply
to cyclists.

If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this.


No quote?


You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for the
very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have made
and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike.

As had already been remarked:

How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist
who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a
traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it?


If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving
without due care?


Are you sure you are quite sane?

You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the law.

That is much harder to determine than the breaking of
a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your
attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence.


Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs.

Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and
safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always
negated when a lesser rule is broken.


TRANSLATION: Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot
injure anyone.


Translation: Cyclists are good targets for being made into scapegoats.


Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't.
  #28  
Old December 11th 19, 07:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,565
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss


...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are the
stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for
the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools", one
has wonder where you think you place yourself.

No response.


It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation
by an oaf.


In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

...
So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have
been committed by this imaginary cyclist?


What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted
robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.


Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving.

...
Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no
rules apply to cyclists.

If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to
show this.


No quote?


You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for
the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have
made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike.


The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly
imaginary) failed thief.

...
As had already been remarked:

How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a
cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal)
side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it?


If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving
without due care?


Are you sure you are quite sane?

You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke
the law.


Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're
completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist.

The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care.

That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary
offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your
attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence.


Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs.


The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing
to comply with traffic signs.

...
Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it
doesn't.


Do you claim to be squeaky clean?
  #29  
Old December 11th 19, 08:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss


...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are the
stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the
guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools", one has wonder
where you think you place yourself.


No response.


It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation
by an oaf.


In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky
clean?


Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience.

You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications for
other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since none
of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a criminal
offence, however egregious.

That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as stupid
as that - are you?

...


So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been
committed by this imaginary cyclist?


What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted
robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.


Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving.


This case demonstrates otherwise.

...


Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules
apply to cyclists.

If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show
this.

No quote?


You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for
the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have
made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike.


The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly
imaginary) failed thief.


I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at
least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I was
talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording - who
committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism whatsoever
whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike or from you.

I hope that's clearer.

...


As had already been remarked:

How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist
who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a
traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it?

If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving
without due care?


Are you sure you are quite sane?

You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the
law.


Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're
completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist.


You were talking (just above at least) about the cyclist who failed to
comply with the signage (the same thing the car-driver did). Neither
that visible chav on a bike nor the robber on a bike are imaginary. We
have the report to tell us that.

The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care.


That is not an automatic charge for failing to comply with a mandatory
sign. There is a perfectly adequate offence of failing to comply with a
mandatory sign - and that is the same offence as a cyclist can clearly
be seen committing early in the video (though that chav gets no
criticism from the camera-equipped loony, for some reason).

That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary
offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your
attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence.


Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs.


The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing
to comply with traffic signs.


How do you know that? How do you know he wasn't charged with both?

And come to that, are you insisting that failing to comply with
mandatory signage isn't an offence (as visibly committed by that chav on
a bike)?

...

Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't.


Do you claim to be squeaky clean?


If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed safely
and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?
  #30  
Old December 13th 19, 11:39 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,565
Default But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss




...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are
the stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules
are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of
fools", one has wonder where you think you place
yourself.


No response.


It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an
ejaculation by an oaf.


In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be
squeaky clean?


Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience.


Ah, we're slowly getting there.

You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications
for other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since
none of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a
criminal offence, however egregious.


I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.

That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as
stupid as that - are you?


The stupidity is amongst those who try to connect the crime to the
criminal's choice of transport.

...


So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have
been committed by this imaginary cyclist?

What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter,
attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.


Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving.


This case demonstrates otherwise.


The two ARE completely different.

The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a
(possibly imaginary) failed thief.


I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at
least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I
was talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording
- who committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism
whatsoever whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike
or from you.


Sigh.

I hope that's clearer.


You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material
factor.

Completely ignoring the effect on other road users, timing and road
layout. And that the driver was charged with driving without due care,
not for a rule (that you can't identify) that prohibits driving the
wrong side of an island.

I hope that's clearer.

...
Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it
doesn't.


Do you claim to be squeaky clean?


If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed
safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?


You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence, you
include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a factor.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav and
another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". You have
the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act
is being condoned.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only in America: Cyclists are never at fault are they? Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 15 June 22nd 12 07:48 PM
Its the motorists fault when cyclists race on the road Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 12 March 3rd 12 07:56 PM
A report showing that 76 per cent of accidents are the cyclists fault, good case for training Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 17 October 22nd 11 11:57 AM
It was the cyclists' fault Justin[_3_] UK 1 December 9th 10 08:11 PM
Mummy, what is it??? saam Unicycling 27 August 2nd 06 06:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.