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.

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.

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.