|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 15/12/2019 13:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/12/2019 11:41, JNugent wrote: On 15/12/2019 06:57, Bod wrote: On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an offence! I didn't say it was. But you are 'fairly certain' it is. Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by colwyn's snipping). Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal. Do you actually know what tyre tread is for? You are lying (again). I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute offence). You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you? [Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context, complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what does "it" refer to?] or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass. You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid. Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts? Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute offence. And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task. Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists? Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield. TRANSLATION: Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time either! Did you or did you not say:- "I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. That is a contextless statement. You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like. Actually, slick tyres on a bicycle grip better than ones with treads. They are also better in the wet. Explanation: https://bike.bikegremlin.com/767/slick-tyres/ A policeman of my acquaintance told me that quite a few drivers of beaten-up old bangers try that one on when a on-road vehicle check reveals defective tyres. I said bicycles, NOT cars etc. I am well aware of it. Nothing I said contradicts anything you said, so why do you feel a need to remark on it? If you bothered to read the explanation I provided, you'd understand why. I have heard of the issue surrounding the differences between proper tyres and specialised tyres for use on private land. It is of little importance. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 11:41:40 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:
On 15/12/2019 06:32, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:09:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 21:38, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 9:22:25 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 20:05, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an offence! I didn't say it was. But you are 'fairly certain' it is. Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by colwyn's snipping). Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal. Do you actually know what tyre tread is for? You are lying (again). I never said that cycling with a bald tyre is illegal (or an absolute offence). You are making it up. That is your usual tactic when you can't win honestly, so you have to use it a lot, don't you? [Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context, complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what does "it" refer to?] or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass. You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid. Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts? Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute offence. And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task. Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists? Don't be afraid to declare an emergency even if you don't have a pilot's licence and your goalposts are not CAA certified. ATC will vector you to the nearest suitable airfield. TRANSLATION: Curses! Foiled again and I cannot think up a "witty" rejoinder this time either! Did you or did you not say:- "I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. That is a contextless statement. You can wriggle and squirm and move the goalposts all you like. He just needs to have the last word! He is never wrong, ever! I know and it's rather sad. I once continued one of these pointless discussions with Nugent to see how long it would be until he gave up in frustration, it took 3 months. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote: 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. I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the sort of criminal offence you're talking about. But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone", Of course I am. which gives carte blanche to criminals. Don't confuse road conduct and crime. ... You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material factor. That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. There are no signs with red borders. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. ... 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. Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there. Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at least 95%. Apart from a few exceptions, road rules merely summarise in a few words what skilled and experienced road users naturally do (not should do) in a few common situations. Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony. Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply to him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not to confront him about the offence? I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac. He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so confrontational. When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you levitation is not an option. You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back. Of course I won't. Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents. yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you know you want to... You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act is being condoned. Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence is hypocrisy. You know that already. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists. Why should anybody take your version of "advice". Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible. Even you. Impartial? Oh dear. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote: 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. I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the sort of criminal offence you're talking about. But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone", Of course I am. which gives carte blanche to criminals. Don't confuse road conduct and crime. "Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and crime. ... You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material factor. That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. There are no signs with red borders. There don't have to be. A keep left bollard does that job. And there is one at either end of the traffic island ignored by that chav on a bike. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. ... 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. Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there. Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at least 95%. You need that AND you need to obey the law. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Apart from a few exceptions, road rules merely summarise in a few words what skilled and experienced road users naturally do (not should do) in a few common situations. Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony. Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply to him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not to confront him about the offence? I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac. Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign directing traffic to its left. He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so confrontational. When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you levitation is not an option. No collision took place. You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back. Of course I won't. Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents. yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you know you want to... Ah... no response. You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act is being condoned. Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence is hypocrisy. You know that already. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. That has nothing to do with it. That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation of the highway. And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists. Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let he who is without..."). Why should anybody take your version of "advice". Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible. Even you. Impartial? Oh dear. Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that or not. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass. Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre. Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that in Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for several months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is easy to blame "cyclists" for all the world's problems. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote:
Do you sleep? On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote: But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone", Of course I am. which gives carte blanche to criminals. Don't confuse road conduct and crime. "Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and crime. Yes, you love to believe that a burglar (for instance) using a bicycle for transport has some direct connection to cycling. Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there. Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at least 95%. You need that AND you need to obey the law. Then you agree that obedience gives nowhere near your previously stated 90%. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Chavs don't think. I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac. Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign directing traffic to its left. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so confrontational. When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you levitation is not an option. No collision took place. A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable. Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know this. You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back. Of course I won't. Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents. yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you know you want to... Ah... no response. I would only find things that reinforce my view. (Do you really believe otherwise?) You have to change your approach and attitude from here on if you want to change the perception others have of you. You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act is being condoned. Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence is hypocrisy. You know that already. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. That has nothing to do with it. That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation of the highway. It is noticeable that nowhere have you applied 'chav' to the driver. And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists. Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let he who is without..."). It is plain enough. Use your amazing telepathic ability if you are having trouble. Why should anybody take your version of "advice". Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible. Even you. Impartial? Oh dear. Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that or not. You have now agreed that skill and judgement are the primary requirements for safety. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote: Do you sleep? I don't care to keep navvies' hours. I never have. On 16/12/2019 21:59, TMS320 wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote: But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone", Of course I am. which gives carte blanche to criminals. Don't confuse road conduct and crime. "Let he who is without..." applies to both road traffic offences and crime. Yes, you love to believe that a burglar (for instance) using a bicycle for transport has some direct connection to cycling. That's a silly wriggle, without meaning or import. Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there. Best of luck in using the roads without skills and judgement. That's at least 95%. You need that AND you need to obey the law. Then you agree that obedience gives nowhere near your previously stated 90%. Obey the law (all of it, not just the bits you like) and the Highway Code and you'll be 90% of the way there. No precaution you are prepared to take can stop a random meteorite striking you as you cycle along the Hackney Road, of course. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Chavs don't think. Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet? I meant the one seen using an empty piece of tarmac, and the other trying to use an occupied piece of tarmac. Unlawful in either case, since they failed to comply with a sign directing traffic to its left. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. It makes no difference. The cyclist still committed the same, visible, obvious offence, but the loony cyclist with the camera took no exception to that. For some reason. He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so confrontational. When a driver puts their vehicle on a collision course with you levitation is not an option. No collision took place. A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable. Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know this. We are all on a collision course 100% of the time, every time we use the road in any way at all. The trick is in knowing how to change direction and speed at the relavent time(s). You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back. Of course I won't. Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents. yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you know you want to... Ah... no response. I would only find things that reinforce my view. (Do you really believe otherwise?) You have to change your approach and attitude from here on if you want to change the perception others have of you. Aha... only a defensive response because you know that the Deja archive won'tsupport you. You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act is being condoned. Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence is hypocrisy. You know that already. Here's a repeat reminder that the driver was charged with driving without due care. That has nothing to do with it. That cyclist chav broke the law. A law designed for safe operation of the highway. It is noticeable that nowhere have you applied 'chav' to the driver. You saw and heard him. The description would clearly not apply. That is not to say that no chavs drive. And it is hypocrisy for a flawed driver to complain about cyclists. Whatever that means (it seenms to be a dumbed-down version of "Let he who is without..."). It is plain enough. Use your amazing telepathic ability if you are having trouble. That's alright. I understand that you are floundering and won't seek to make that worse. Why should anybody take your version of "advice". Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions. We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible. Even you. Impartial? Oh dear. Indeed. And the law applies to chavs on bikes whether you like that or not. You have now agreed that skill and judgement are the primary requirements for safety. I have not. We all are entitled to expect that other road users will obey the law and thus behave in a defined and predictable way. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 09:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass. Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre. I did not say that. You are lying again. I said that like driving (DRIVING) with a bald tyre, failing to comply with highway signage is an absolute offence. Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that in Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for several months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is easy to blame "cyclists" for all the world's problems. Argument is really not your long suit, is it? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote: A "collision course" can exist without a collision being inevitable. Quite remarkable that the world's most knowitall road user doesn't know this. We are all on a collision course 100% of the time, every time we use the road in any way at all. The trick is in knowing how to change direction and speed at the relavent time(s). Aaghh... "relevant". |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 12:11, JNugent wrote:
On 17/12/2019 09:19, TMS320 wrote: On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote: On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote: I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists. Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an offence! or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean damaged to the canvass. Nugent said it is illegal for a cyclist to drive with a bald tyre. I did not say that. You are lying again. Well, my reply was to a poster that had misinterpreted your words. I thought you would be grateful that I noted his error. I said that like driving (DRIVING) with a bald tyre, failing to comply with highway signage is an absolute offence... Obviously it is correct. But it is necessary to bear in mind that in Nugent's mind, being a "cyclist" an affliction that lasts for several months or years after touching a bicycle. That way it is easy to blame "cyclists" for all the world's problems. Argument is really not your long suit, is it? Shrug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |