Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 11:49 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 19/05/2020 10:01, Pamela wrote:
On 08:21 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 18/05/2020 13:44, Pamela wrote:

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist. At least, within
my own limitations. Back in those sweet old days I never encountered
the militant negative attitude found here towards motorists.

What is this "militant negative attitude" and where is it found?

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule
breaking by cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some
motorists who expect other road users to follow the same rules as
they do.

Only pedestrians can be affected by cyclist (mis)behaviour.

Motorists produce casualties in large numbers and break laws that
cyclists can't break. Too bad if they "get upset".

It's intriguing. Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I read
such material from a neutral point of view.

It's unfortunate but it's might not be reading neutral material.
If it's from newspapers, crime is spiralling out of control, the
economy is always going to crash next week and corona virus is killing
people in large numbers.

It happens that cyclist lists do also walk and drive and experience
use of the roads at first hand and from all angles.

Your responses are rather tangential.

Perhaps you have run out of useful arguments.

You haven't addressed anything I said. Oh well, nothing to see, move on.

Alternatively perhaps your thoughts are zigzagging but you're not aware
of it, in which case you might find find a book like this useful.

"Critical Thinking Toolkit" https://b-ok.cc/book/3699922/cb5767 (free)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TMS320-book/dp/047065869X/

To get from A to B successfully I work from a few basic rules, past
experiences and ability to deal with **** happening. Stangely enough, as
I have got older, **** seems to have been happening less often. From
your exalted position, perhaps you can suggest what I must be doing
wrong.

Your assessments are muddled, no doubt including assessment of your own
ability. Try to be less negative. It will help and you will feel better.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:33:51 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What I still don't understand is how Mark James from BP's HR contacted you
by phone but didn't confirm his discussion with you by email or enter a
file note on your record. After all, an HR person does not have the
authority to absolve an employee on their own personal whim but would
record what did or did not happen to ensure everything was done properly.

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ

On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:30:41 GMT, Pamela
wrote:
[]
In the olden days you could say anything you liked on Usenet but as
social media abuses in places like Facebook abounded then people took
action. They showed what was said in posts would have consequences.

I'm not aware of Judith's actions or what triggered them because they
seem to be before my time.

[]

By contrast, if you go to the radio ham group, members still posting
there these days did take their differences to court and one was
fined. See:

For a newbie you seem to have a good grasp of usenet history.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:30:41 GMT, Pamela
wrote:

[]

In the olden days you could say anything you liked on Usenet but as
social media abuses in places like Facebook abounded then people took
action. They showed what was said in posts would have consequences.

I'm not aware of Judith's actions or what triggered them because they
seem to be before my time.

[]
You seem to have a firm grasp of Usenet history.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 17:55 19 May 2020, Kerr-Mudd,John said:

On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:30:41 GMT, Pamela
wrote:
[]
In the olden days you could say anything you liked on Usenet but as
social media abuses in places like Facebook abounded then people took
action. They showed what was said in posts would have consequences.

I'm not aware of Judith's actions or what triggered them because they
seem to be before my time.

[]

By contrast, if you go to the radio ham group, members still posting
there these days did take their differences to court and one was
fined. See:

For a newbie you seem to have a good grasp of usenet history.

Google is my friend. And who said I was a newbie?

On 19/05/2020 14:08, Pamela wrote:
On 10:47 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because
the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her
father was in the right?

Perhaps the cyclists can get you for libel with your claim "that they
have taken the side of the father".

Simon has alleged the man committed a public order offence. Simon also
provided own false testimony. See:

MID

It's pointless making a link. If there is something you want to bring
forward just copy and past it. Not that it's relevant.

It is not libel for me to say cyclists have taken the side of the father.

But still an inaccurate statement.

On 19/05/2020 14:08, Pamela wrote:

Your assessments are muddled, no doubt including assessment of your
own ability. Try to be less negative. It will help and you will
feel better.

Obviously more **** happens these days but the reason I don't notice it
is because I'm not seeing it. Nothing to do with being able to deal with
it. So it's becoming more likely that it will hit the fan. Thank you for
pointing this out.

On 15:48 19 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:33:51 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What I still don't understand is how Mark James from BP's HR contacted
you by phone but didn't confirm his discussion with you by email or
enter a file note on your record. After all, an HR person does not
have the authority to absolve an employee on their own personal whim
but would record what did or did not happen to ensure everything was
done properly.

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of
which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter
Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ

It says he's written a complaint about your misuse of company computer
resources. Most companies prohibit employees posting social messages
company equipment in company time. It was hardly worthwhile you telling
the police about your slack work attitude.

What does that have to do with the 2011 BP AGM or the HR person's phone
call? You'll forgive me if I'm getting confused but your story keeps
changing.

At the end of the day, what seems to have happened is your endless public
goading, for which you are notorious, led someone to take issue with your
activity and report it. What else did you expect?

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 11:24:09 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 15:48 19 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 10:33:51 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What I still don't understand is how Mark James from BP's HR contacted
you by phone but didn't confirm his discussion with you by email or
enter a file note on your record. After all, an HR person does not
have the authority to absolve an employee on their own personal whim
but would record what did or did not happen to ensure everything was
done properly.

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of
which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter
Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ

It says he's written a complaint about your misuse of company computer
resources. Most companies prohibit employees posting social messages
company equipment in company time. It was hardly worthwhile you telling
the police about your slack work attitude.

On the contrary, when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training".

Simon Mason wrote:

...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them,
during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the
internet as it was "free IT training".

I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have
with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it
out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion.