|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
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. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
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? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
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"? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
31 drivers have been pulled over by police in Hull | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 2 | October 17th 19 12:07 PM |
Stopped by the Police | CoreTechs | Unicycling | 59 | November 23rd 07 09:08 AM |
60% of drivers give false details when stopped. | spindrift | UK | 87 | November 27th 06 03:31 PM |
Tour of Yorkshire England, 2005. Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors. | [email protected] | Rides | 1 | June 22nd 05 11:00 AM |
A cycletour of Yorkshire, Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors, 2005. | [email protected] | UK | 1 | June 13th 05 10:51 AM |