|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote: On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote: 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. Not a wriggle. The silliness is all yours when you insist that cycling continues after a bicycle has been put to one side. 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. What a strange and pointless observation. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Chavs don't think. Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet? Did you write that in front of a mirror? 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. No matter, sensible people can work it out. 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. That's not accurate unless you're including the road infrastructure. The trick is in knowing how to change direction and speed at the relavent time(s). Am I allowed to use skill and judgement or must I seek legal advice before I make my next move? 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're up against perceptions that you have built up over time (intentionally or not). It is not going to change by fact finding. 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. Ah, the Nugent definition of a chav is somebody that passes the wrong side of an island. Unless Nugent approves of his personal appearance. 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. Then I can assume you understand. 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. I expect people to behave in a safe and predictable way. The law has few additional requirements. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 16:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/12/2019 12:09, JNugent wrote: On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote: On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote: 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. Not a wriggle. The silliness is all yours when you insist that cycling continues after a bicycle has been put to one side. More nonsense. No-one has ever said that (except you). 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. What a strange and pointless observation. It's just that events happen, and it sometimes doesn't matter how cautious we have been until then. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Chavs don't think. Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet? Did you write that in front of a mirror? Did you write that in the corner of a primary school playground? 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. No matter, sensible people can work it out. 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. That's not accurate unless you're including the road infrastructure. It is 100% accurate. No matter what direction you travel in (discounting levitation) you will eventually run into something unless you change direction or stop. it's a small world. We are all on a collision course with something every time we are in motion. The trick is in knowing how to change direction and speed at the relavent time(s). Am I allowed to use skill and judgement or must I seek legal advice before I make my next move? You need to understand and take account of both concepts. But you don't accept that. 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're up against perceptions that you have built up over time (intentionally or not). It is not going to change by fact finding. Facts don't matter to you, eh? But then, whoever thought they did? 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. Ah, the Nugent definition of a chav is somebody that passes the wrong side of an island. Unless Nugent approves of his personal appearance. A chav is someone who (among other things) cannot conceive of the need to have regard for the rights of others. 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. Then I can assume you understand. I just said so. 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. I expect people to behave in a safe and predictable way. The law has few additional requirements. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 17/12/2019 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/12/2019 16:26, TMS320 wrote: On 17/12/2019 12:09, JNugent wrote: On 17/12/2019 11:50, TMS320 wrote: On 17/12/2019 02:57, JNugent wrote: 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. Not a wriggle. The silliness is all yours when you insist that cycling continues after a bicycle has been put to one side. More nonsense. No-one has ever said that (except you). Oh, not in those exact words. But language does have the remarkable ability of allowing many ways to say the same thing. We'll see how long it is before you claim that an off topic post is on topic because a [non-cycling] "cyclist is relevant to cycling, innit". No precaution you are prepared to take can stop a random meteorite striking you as you cycle along the Hackney Road, of course. What a strange and pointless observation. It's just that events happen, and it sometimes doesn't matter how cautious we have been until then. Shrug. Only chavs think the law doesn't apply to them. Chavs don't think. Not even when yo... y... they... post to usenet? Did you write that in front of a mirror? Did you write that in the corner of a primary school playground? Opposite to the corner you were in. 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. That's not accurate unless you're including the road infrastructure. It is 100% accurate. No matter what direction you travel in (discounting levitation) you will eventually run into something unless you change direction or stop. it's a small world. We are all on a collision course with something every time we are in motion. Then you are including road infrastructure. The trick is in knowing how to change direction and speed at the relavent time(s). Am I allowed to use skill and judgement or must I seek legal advice before I make my next move? You need to understand and take account of both concepts. I'm fine as I am, thank you. But you don't accept that. You're saying road users should use skill and judgement except when they shouldn't. 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're up against perceptions that you have built up over time (intentionally or not). It is not going to change by fact finding. Facts don't matter to you, eh? Proper facts are no problem. Nothing is going to change by fact finding because a search would only find material where "facts" would be decided by opinion. But then, whoever thought they did? You saw and heard him. The description would clearly not apply. That is not to say that no chavs drive. Ah, the Nugent definition of a chav is somebody that passes the wrong side of an island. Unless Nugent approves of his personal appearance. A chav is someone who (among other things) cannot conceive of the need to have regard for the rights of others. By which definition the driver found to be driving without care was a chav and the cyclist was not. Glad we have cleared that up. |
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 |