Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park

On 07/08/2020 13:23, Pamela wrote:
On 05/08/2020 23:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/08/2020 22:01, Pamela wrote:

In other words, a shifting rucksack packed with groceries will
destabilise a cyclist.ÂÂ* If it is more than he can compensate for then
he will fall off.ÂÂ* Q.E.D.

It would.

Just as it would for someone walking or running. People also fall over
when they can't compensate for a slippery surface or a step. But if
you're carrying a bag on your back, make sure the straps are done up
properly.

I imagine TMS320 slipped out his two word acceptance of the facts in the
hope that it wasn't picked out of his comment about pedestrians.

Ias replying to the words in your post, not to Nugent's

On 07/08/2020 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2020 20:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/2020 14:11, JNugent wrote:

What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic rules of
physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school?

So by the second year you thought you knew everything and had
developed your ambition to be a technician.

That is a very poor wriggle.

You're not denying it.

So.... What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic
rules of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school
(or, as is more likely to be the case for you, at a "bog-standard" sink
comp)?

I readily accept the Laws of physics. If my knowledge is lacking I am
also ready to learn. You are not a teacher.

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to
cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to spot a
cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...c4d52938b5914c

On 08/08/2020 10:12, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/08/2020 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2020 20:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/2020 14:11, JNugent wrote:

What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic rules
of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school?

So by the second year you thought you knew everything and had
developed your ambition to be a technician.

That is a very poor wriggle.

You're not denying it.

Why would I deny your wriggle?

So.... What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic
rules of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school
(or, as is more likely to be the case for you, at a "bog-standard"
sink comp)?

I readily accept the Laws of physics. If my knowledge is lacking I am
also ready to learn. You are not a teacher.

But you have now learned and do - at last - accept that a raised centre
of gravity reduces stability.

But... if you were not knowledgeable on that very limited and basic
topic, one does marvel that you ever saw fit to dispute it.

On 09/08/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2020 10:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/2020 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2020 20:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/2020 14:11, JNugent wrote:

What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic rules
of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school?

So by the second year you thought you knew everything and had
developed your ambition to be a technician.

That is a very poor wriggle.

You're not denying it.

Why would I deny your wriggle?

It's your nature. The unaswered question is whether your poor analytical
ability is due to your attenuated education or whether it caused your
education to be attenuated.

So.... What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic
rules of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school
(or, as is more likely to be the case for you, at a "bog-standard"
sink comp)?

I readily accept the Laws of physics. If my knowledge is lacking I am
also ready to learn. You are not a teacher.

But you have now learned and do - at last - accept that a raised centre
of gravity reduces stability.

Readily accepting the Laws of physics does not mean I have to accept
your unsupported opinion as fact.

But... if you were not knowledgeable on that very limited and basic
topic, one does marvel that you ever saw fit to dispute it.

One marvels at how you manage to make 2+2=5. Or maybe 3.

On 09/08/2020 15:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2020 10:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/08/2020 16:27, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2020 20:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/2020 14:11, JNugent wrote:

What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic rules
of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school?

So by the second year you thought you knew everything and had
developed your ambition to be a technician.

That is a very poor wriggle.

You're not denying it.

Why would I deny your wriggle?

It's your nature. The unaswered question is whether your poor analytical
ability is due to your attenuated education or whether it caused your
education to be attenuated.

"Attenuated education"?

I am a university graduate.

So.... What made you change your mind and start accepting the basic
rules of physics as taught to us in the first year at grammar school
(or, as is more likely to be the case for you, at a "bog-standard"
sink comp)?

I readily accept the Laws of physics. If my knowledge is lacking I am
also ready to learn. You are not a teacher.

But you have now learned and do - at last - accept that a raised
centre of gravity reduces stability.

Readily accepting the Laws of physics does not mean I have to accept
your unsupported opinion as fact.

You didn't understand a basic tenet of physics and disputed it without
even checking. Even Doug wasn't as stupid as that.

But... if you were not knowledgeable on that very limited and basic
topic, one does marvel that you ever saw fit to dispute it.

One marvels at how you manage to make 2+2=5. Or maybe 3.

You're the one who did not accept the (rather obvious) facts of basic
physics. You must be feeling very silly and defensive now.

As I said in a comment to Pamela: "principle of moments".

It is of direct relevance to the effect of the height of a centre of
gravity and I honestly would have expected you to have heard of it. But
apparently not.

Look it up before you start arguing about it.

On 09/08/2020 19:08, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:02, JNugent wrote:

The argument is about you failing to give your working. I have told
you about inverted pendulums. Look that up.

Do you know what an axiom is? Look it up if you don't.

You haven't stated an axiom.

I am still surprised that you didn't know what the effect of changing
the height of a centre of gravity. It is pretty close to being axiomatic.

I am not surprised you are still trying to wriggle.

On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to
cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to spot
a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...backpacks?imag
e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c

Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about supermarket
groceries.

On 21:07 9 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 09/08/2020 19:08, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:02, JNugent wrote:

The argument is about you failing to give your working. I have told
you about inverted pendulums. Look that up.

Do you know what an axiom is? Look it up if you don't.

You haven't stated an axiom.

I am still surprised that you didn't know what the effect of changing
the height of a centre of gravity. It is pretty close to being axiomatic.

I am not surprised you are still trying to wriggle.


That's "grade A" trolling. You troll like a master and I guess you have had
a lot of practice.

On 09/08/2020 21:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/08/2020 19:08, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:02, JNugent wrote:

The argument is about you failing to give your working. I have told
you about inverted pendulums. Look that up.

Do you know what an axiom is? Look it up if you don't.

You haven't stated an axiom.

I didn't say I had.

I am still surprised that you didn't know what the effect of changing
the height of a centre of gravity. It is pretty close to being axiomatic.

I am not surprised you are still trying to wriggle.

Dear me... that is desperate even for you.