Driver killed by brick weapon.

On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can
pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100 bike
with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you would
disagree.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the ground
below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she had
her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed to
look for things connected to the road and disturbing the background,
not for something static floating above it. The visual system works
mostly about matching things to past experience so would take several
seconds to work out something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the
way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an
inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can
pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100 bike
with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you would
disagree.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she had
her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed to
look for things connected to the road and disturbing the background,
not for something static floating above it. The visual system works
mostly about matching things to past experience so would take several
seconds to work out something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the
way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an
inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

You've never actually been to that locality, have you?

You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along that
riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Please be explicit.

On 14/08/17 23:21, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can
pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100
bike with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you
would disagree.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she
had her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed
to look for things connected to the road and disturbing the
background, not for something static floating above it. The visual
system works mostly about matching things to past experience so
would take several seconds to work out something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the
way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an
inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

You've never actually been to that locality, have you?

You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along that
riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

Not necessary. I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

Please be explicit.

I have. Here it is again:

"Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."

On 15/08/2017 10:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 23:21, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you
can pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100
bike with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you
would disagree.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she
had her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed
to look for things connected to the road and disturbing the
background, not for something static floating above it. The visual
system works mostly about matching things to past experience so
would take several seconds to work out something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the
way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of
an inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

You've never actually been to that locality, have you?

You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along
that riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

Not necessary.

No?

You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will never
see by philosophy or divination, can you?

I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

And what would that prove?

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

I hope you don't "think" that I endorse careless, reckless or drunken
driving.

Please be explicit.

I have. Here it is again:

"Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."

Childish.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious: there is simply no
connection between what that Range Rover's driver and what the injured
cyclist (or the idiot who stretched a vandalised lifebelt rope across
the prom) did.

On 15/08/17 15:00, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2017 10:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 23:21, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you
can pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100
bike with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you
would disagree.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she
had her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed
to look for things connected to the road and disturbing the
background, not for something static floating above it. The visual
system works mostly about matching things to past experience so
would take several seconds to work out something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the
way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of
an inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

You've never actually been to that locality, have you?

You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along
that riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

Not necessary.

No?

Not necessary.

You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will never
see by philosophy or divination, can you?

I have not suggested a figure.

I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

And what would that prove?

To know that your suggestion is ridiculous.

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the
wind after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

I hope you don't "think" that I endorse careless, reckless or drunken
driving.

Please be explicit.

I have. Here it is again:

"Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."

Childish.

You get what you deserve.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious: there is simply no
connection between what that Range Rover's driver and what the injured
cyclist (or the idiot who stretched a vandalised lifebelt rope across
the prom) did.

I haven't claimed a direct connection. Since I really must spell it out,
it was a counterpoint to your imaginary vision defects of cyclists. Have
*you* seen it yet? - you might need to spend more than several seconds
for it to reach your consciousness.

On 15/08/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/08/17 15:00, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2017 10:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 23:21, JNugent wrote:
On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.
“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you
can pick up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100
bike with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you
would disagree.

The actual speed isn't that important. It's what the rider is
concentrating on - and the goal they are setting themself (as opposed to
proceeding safely) which is the issue.

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she
had her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is
accustomed to look for things connected to the road and
disturbing the background, not for something static floating
above it. The visual system works mostly about matching things to
past experience so would take several seconds to work out
something so unfamiliar.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by
the way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best
part of an inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

You've never actually been to that locality, have you?
You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along
that riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

Not necessary.

No?

Not necessary.

Is that:

(a) "Not necessary to know what I, TMS320, am talking about,
particularly since I have never seen a lifebelt point, complete with
rope and cannot be wrong", or

(b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
to a static point onshore"?

If it's the latter, you'd be better addressing your suggestions to the
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.

You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will
never see by philosophy or divination, can you?

I have not suggested a figure.

But you deny that sturdy ropes, the best part of an inch thick, are
necessary.

I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

And what would that prove?

To know that your suggestion is ridiculous.

I have made no suggestions.

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
failing to see something considerably bigger and which should
have correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had
been blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to
the wind after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

I hope you don't "think" that I endorse careless, reckless or drunken
driving.

Please be explicit.

I have. Here it is again:

"Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."

Childish.

You get what you deserve.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious: there is simply
no connection between what that Range Rover's driver and what the
injured cyclist (or the idiot who stretched a vandalised lifebelt rope
across the prom) did.

I haven't claimed a direct connection. Since I really must spell it out,
it was a counterpoint to your imaginary vision defects of cyclists.

I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where they
are going.

That can have terrible results even for those with perfect vision.

Have
*you* seen it yet? - you might need to spend more than several seconds
for it to reach your consciousness.

There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
and that of Citizen B.

Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys did.

On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:

(b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
to a static point onshore"?

I have not said that sturdy ropes are not necessary. If you stopped
twisting things (amongst other faults) your opinions might get more respect.


I have made no suggestions.

An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.


I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.


I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where they
are going.

Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
imply not looking.

There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
and that of Citizen B.

Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys did.

Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.

On 16/08/2017 23:55, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:

(b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
to a static point onshore"?

I have not said that sturdy ropes are not necessary. If you stopped
twisting things (amongst other faults) your opinions might get more
respect.


I have made no suggestions.

An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.

For the thickness of the ropes attached to lifebelts?

The phrase was "the better part of an inch".

It was not a suggestion, it was an estimate based on direct observation.

I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.

Except you, obviously.

I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where
they are going.

Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
imply not looking.

But not looking is a guarantee of not seeing.

There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
and that of Citizen B.

Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys
did.

Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.

"If".

On 17/08/17 00:44, JNugent wrote:
On 16/08/2017 23:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:

I have made no suggestions.

An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.

For the thickness of the ropes attached to lifebelts?

The phrase was "the better part of an inch".

So what? By implanting "an inch" in your own mind, your imagination made
it large enough that the victim should have seen it.

It is similar to the way you like to exaggerate cycling speed.

It was not a suggestion, it was an estimate based on direct observation.

I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.

Except you, obviously.

Try to unravel the negatives and see what you end up with. Do you think
everybody else likes being insulted?

I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where
they are going.

Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
imply not looking.

But not looking is a guarantee of not seeing.

Why repeat what I just said?

There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
and that of Citizen B.

Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys
did.

Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.

"If".

It is about bicycle riders receiving worse treatment than motor vehicle
drivers for the same sins. It certainly happens here.