The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week

On 27/05/2020 22:28, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 10:15:39 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by
drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

Agreed - there is little sense in the vast daily carnage attributed to killer car drivers. If aircraft or trains killed the same, there'd be an almighty outcry.

For once, you are right. There is little sense in what TMS320 wrote.

You can do it when you try. Try to keep it up.

On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 20:30:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote:
On 08:34Â* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote:
ÂÂ*
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire-
news/dri
vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763

The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be
cyclists (if they're not already).

It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on
reflection,
explain a few things.

But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which
makes a difference.

Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians.

Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their
disposal
to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an
irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope
for.

We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill.

I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at?

Cyclist who kill (and injure).

I expect you could name every one.

I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason.

I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists
never hurt anyone.

You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the
safety
of others.

I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and
I do
not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally
rare
cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working.

Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger.

Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to
danger, if any, you have in mind.

My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId
by drivers. There can be no other metric.

...and?

Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it
enough times.

You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data.

I do not drive dangerously,

Are you saying you have never exceeded a speed limit?

On 28/05/2020 03:08, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 20:30:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote:
On 08:34Â* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote:
ÂÂ*
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire-
news/dri
vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763

The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be
cyclists (if they're not already).

It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on
reflection,
explain a few things.

But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which
makes a difference.

Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians.

Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their
disposal
to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an
irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope
for.

We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill.

I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at?

Cyclist who kill (and injure).

I expect you could name every one.

I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason.

I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists
never hurt anyone.

You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the
safety
of others.

I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and
I do
not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally
rare
cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working.

Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger.

Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to
danger, if any, you have in mind.

My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId
by drivers. There can be no other metric.

...and?

Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it
enough times.

You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data.

I do not drive dangerously,

Are you saying you have never exceeded a speed limit?

You just don't understand the Road Traffic Acts, do you?

I don't suppose that puts you in much of a minority among cyclists.

On 22:28 27 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 10:15:39 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId
by drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

Agreed - there is little sense in the vast daily carnage attributed to
killer car drivers. If aircraft or trains killed the same, there'd be an
almighty outcry.

Thank you for demonstrating what passes for joined-up thinking in this group.

On 23:25 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/05/2020 22:15, Pamela wrote:


Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote:

"You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety
of others.

When asked to clarify it, you wrote:

"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by
drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

You really can't see any connection between driving (which is a
convenience) and the number of casualties?

What does that have to do with your unfounded assertion that Nugent is
"putting [his] convenience above the safety of others"?

On 28/05/2020 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:


My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are
KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric.

...and?

Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it
enough times.

You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data.

I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG
that they have got it wrong?

I do not drive dangerously,

You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you
drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger.

You say a lot of things. You never bother proving them.

The casualties numbers are direct evidence. If you believe it can't
happen to you, you are deluding yourself.

whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and
without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms.

Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way street
before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the purpose was
to avoid mingling with pedestrians?

If that was one of your admissions (or, rather, your boasts), yes.

There were others, including cycling along footways, ignoring red
traffic lights, etc.

That's very vague on your part.

I have never defended cycling on the footway. I have also not condemned
it - as you insist I should. The latter clearly means I must be a sinner
in your eyes.

On the bike I have occasionally gone past a red light after taking all
care. I have also driven past red lights after misjuding the timing. To
you, the former worse than the latter because you judge intention rather
safety. You're wrong.

On 28/05/2020 11:38, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/05/2020 01:44, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:


My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are
KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric.

...and?

Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over
it enough times.

You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data.

I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG
that they have got it wrong?

I do not drive dangerously,

You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you
drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger.

You say a lot of things. You never bother proving them.

The casualties numbers are direct evidence...

....as far as your kindergarten-level "thinking" is concerned.

If you believe it can't
happen to you, you are deluding yourself.

As I said, you never bother proving any of your nonsensical assertions.

That's only because you can't, of course.

whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and
without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms.

Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way
street before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the
purpose was to avoid mingling with pedestrians?

If that was one of your admissions (or, rather, your boasts), yes.

There were others, including cycling along footways, ignoring red
traffic lights, etc.

That's very vague on your part.

Your admission was clear enough, even if a little vague as to places,
times and number of pedestrians threatened. I can only use the
information you yourself have provided, coupled with your repeated
failure to condemn acts of selfishness and sociopathy by cyclists.

I have never defended cycling on the footway. I have also not condemned
it - as you insist I should. The latter clearly means I must be a sinner
in your eyes.

You haven't condemned it, even though it is a clear offence and a clear
threat (or, as you put it, "not an advantage") to pedestrians. If you
expected to be taken seriously, you could condemn it easily. I have no
difficulty in condemning analogous illegal actions by the drivers and
riders of motor vehicles.

On the bike I have occasionally gone past a red light after taking all
care. I have also driven past red lights after misjuding the timing. To
you, the former worse than the latter because you judge intention rather
safety. You're wrong.

A mistake is a mistake. Anyone can make a mistake and everyone should be
able to understand that. I have been at pains to emphasise that mistakes
happen.

Cyclists don't generally ride through red traffic lights, along
footways, through pedestrian-only areas or the wrong way along one-way
streets because they have made a mistake. They commit those offences
deliberately and selfishly and everyone - including you - knows that.

On 28/05/2020 10:44, Pamela wrote:
On 23:25 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/05/2020 22:15, Pamela wrote:


Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote:

"You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety
of others.

When asked to clarify it, you wrote:

"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by
drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

You really can't see any connection between driving (which is a
convenience) and the number of casualties?

What does that have to do with your unfounded assertion that Nugent is
"putting [his] convenience above the safety of others"?

Sigh. For the hard of thinking.

It is a fact (not an unfounded assertion) that a car is a convenience
for the users (Nugent is no exception). It is a fact (not an unfounded
assertion) that vehicle users KSI 3800 pedestrians a year.

Whether you like it or not the two things are connected.

On 28/05/2020 12:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/05/2020 10:44, Pamela wrote:
On 23:25Â* 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 27/05/2020 22:15, Pamela wrote:

Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote:

Â*Â*Â* "You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the
safety of others.

When asked to clarify it, you wrote:

Â*Â*Â* "My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are
KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

You really can't see any connection between driving (which is a
convenience) and the number of casualties?

What does that have to do with your unfounded assertion that Nugent is
"putting [his] convenience above the safety of others"?

Sigh. For the hard of thinking.

It is a fact (not an unfounded assertion) that a car is a convenience
for the users (Nugent is no exception). It is a fact (not an unfounded
assertion) that vehicle users KSI 3800 pedestrians a year.

Whether you like it or not the two things are connected.

TMS320: A noted adherent of the School of "Because I Say So".

There's no point in expecting logic or common sense from him.

Don't expect it and you won't be disappointed.

On 12:11 28 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 28/05/2020 10:44, Pamela wrote:
On 23:25 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/05/2020 22:15, Pamela wrote:


Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote:

"You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the
safety of others.

When asked to clarify it, you wrote:

"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are
KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric."

There seems to be little sense to it.

You really can't see any connection between driving (which is a
convenience) and the number of casualties?

What does that have to do with your unfounded assertion that Nugent is
"putting [his] convenience above the safety of others"?

Sigh. For the hard of thinking.

It is a fact (not an unfounded assertion) that a car is a convenience
for the users (Nugent is no exception). It is a fact (not an unfounded
assertion) that vehicle users KSI 3800 pedestrians a year.

Whether you like it or not the two things are connected.

The connection is so tenuous that it strains credulity.

What's next? Are we making stabbings more likely because we own a kitchen
knife?