| --------SPACE--------|

On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor vehicles
side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

The technique amounts to self-centred abuse of other road-users no
matter who does it or how they do it.

It's totally unnecessary and undesirable.

On 11/08/2015 10:21, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles
side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

The technique amounts to self-centred abuse of other road-users no
matter who does it or how they do it.

It's totally unnecessary and undesirable.

Then don't do it.

On 11/08/2015 10:25, Bod wrote:

On 11/08/2015 10:21, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?
The technique amounts to self-centred abuse of other road-users no
matter who does it or how they do it.
It's totally unnecessary and undesirable.

Then don't do it.

It ought to have been clear - even to you - that I would never do it.

But obviously, not everyone is capable of correct inference and
comprehension when reading.

"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio happens
and you know what people think about it.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles
side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

The technique amounts to self-centred abuse of other road-users no matter
who does it or how they do it.

It's totally unnecessary and undesirable.

It can be. But I was responding to your nonsense about drivers trying to
have a side by side chat.

On Wednesday, 12 August 2015 01:17:31 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
But I was responding to your nonsense about drivers trying to
have a side by side chat.

Looks like these killers were having a side by side chat while racing together.
It's been "living hell" for the killer though apparently.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/rea...ersham-9836570

On 12/08/2015 01:17, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio happens
and you know what people think about it.

Correct and correct.

It is just as I said.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

And?

The technique amounts to self-centred abuse of other road-users no matter
who does it or how they do it.
It's totally unnecessary and undesirable.

It can be. But I was responding to your nonsense about drivers trying to
have a side by side chat.

They could try. Or they could just use some other excuse for obstructing
the highway. Cyclists have a million of 'em.

"JNugent" wrote
On 12/08/2015 01:17, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio happens
and you know what people think about it.

Correct and correct.

It is just as I said.

Apart from failing to realise until it was pointed out to you.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

And?

If the implication is not obvious to you, it is more evidence that you are
not of this world.

On 12/08/2015 20:24, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 12/08/2015 01:17, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio happens
and you know what people think about it.

Correct and correct.
It is just as I said.

Apart from failing to realise until it was pointed out to you.

Don't be so stupid.

All you did was repeat what I said.

What about the question?

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

And?

If the implication is not obvious to you, it is more evidence that you are
not of this world.

What was your "point"?

What does the fact that a head-on collision is usually worse than a
rear-end collision got to do with the topic?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2015 20:24, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 12/08/2015 01:17, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio
happens
and you know what people think about it.

Correct and correct.
It is just as I said.

Apart from failing to realise until it was pointed out to you.

Don't be so stupid.

Are there any mirrors in your house?

All you did was repeat what I said.

What about the question?

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

And?

If the implication is not obvious to you, it is more evidence that you
are
not of this world.

What was your "point"?

What was yours?

What does the fact that a head-on collision is usually worse than a
rear-end collision got to do with the topic?

Where did rear end collisions come from?

On 12/08/2015 21:01, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
On 12/08/2015 20:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 12/08/2015 01:17, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 10/08/2015 21:25, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

What would you say if two motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a
conversation (and as entitled as anyone else to do so) drove two
abreast?

Lorry drivers seem to do it fairly regularly on motorways and dual
carriageways...

Not with the whole-hearted approval of other drivers.

You put the words "would" and "if" in your sentence. The scenerio
happens and you know what people think about it.

Correct and correct.
It is just as I said.

Apart from failing to realise until it was pointed out to you.

Don't be so stupid.

Are there any mirrors in your house?

All you did was repeat what I said.

What about the question?

You are not going to be drawn on what your reaction would be if two
motor vehicle drivers, keen to conduct a conversation (and as entitled
as anyone else to do so) drove two abreast, are you? And that's odd,
since you seem happy with the situation when two much slower vehicles
obstruct the road in that manner.

But otherwise, please tell us your technique of fitting two motor
vehicles side by side in a single lane.

What have lanes to do with it?

Crashes involving motor vehicles rarely make the headlines but head on
collisions are sometimes newsworthy.

And?

If the implication is not obvious to you, it is more evidence that you
are not of this world.

What was your "point"?

What was yours?

Mine was that cyclists should not obstruct the road in any way which is
unnecessary to the making of progress whilst displaying due care and
attention and due consideration for other road users (as, indeed,
neither should anyone else).

Yours was....?

What does the fact that a head-on collision is usually worse than a
rear-end collision got to do with the topic?

Where did rear end collisions come from?

You introduced an extraneous "point" to the effect that "head on
collisions" are "worse". You must have had some comparator type of
collision in mind. But perhaps I was expecting too much logic from you.