A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 28th 18, 09:21 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.


Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.


How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.


Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Ads
  #22  
Old October 28th 18, 09:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,189
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.


Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

  #23  
Old October 28th 18, 09:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.


Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim?


Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?
  #24  
Old October 28th 18, 09:40 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,189
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim?


Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?


So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.

  #25  
Old October 28th 18, 09:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?


Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?


So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.


No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.
  #26  
Old October 28th 18, 10:00 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,189
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?


So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.


No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.


You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.

  #27  
Old October 28th 18, 10:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/2018 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.


No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.


You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.


The evidence is already there.
  #28  
Old October 29th 18, 01:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,597
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/18 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have
a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


This person has a dashcam:-
~ he decided to go public to bleat about something;
~ we only saw edited highlights.


It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple
concepts.


Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash"
can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple
context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal
on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed").

But that latter is what you were asking for.


Not in the slightest.


Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence
from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the
car.


Quote me.

It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts.

That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an
evasion of the issue.

However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that
when the police saw the video they just said diddums.

About what? The alleged obstruction?


The damage to the driver's pride.


I hope so too.

But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a
criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to
your property?

And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit?

Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work).


I still don't know how it works. I can't be bothered to ask for another
non-answer.
  #29  
Old October 29th 18, 01:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,597
Default Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon

On 28/10/18 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote:

You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events
which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing?

You seem to have rather missed the point (again).
The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his
bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam",
it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage
of the "obstruction" could exist.

It's reported, huh?

Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to
have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been
obstructed. It's all there, at the same source.

I don't care what was reported.

Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe.

OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any
reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown
(at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers
to overtake and then cut in and stop.

You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to
see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction
was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist,
crazed or otherwise?).

So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on.

I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems
commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a
winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement.

How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket
alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen?


My car has front and rear cams.

Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not
only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with
that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road?

If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark?

So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted.


No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a
non-existent one.

The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought"
that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the
number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there.

But of course, it doesn't say anything about it.


You said

"Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well."

You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise.


Isn't it amazing how Nugent has so much difficulty grasping very simple
concepts?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cyclist attacked by cycle weapon Mrcheerful UK 1 October 17th 15 07:57 AM
Cyclist attacked by stationary car weapon Mrcheerful UK 5 August 15th 15 12:53 PM
Cyclist attacked by sheep weapon Mrcheerful UK 2 August 15th 15 08:30 AM
Cyclist attacked by bus shelter weapon Mrcheerful UK 3 March 11th 14 08:53 PM
Norwich man attacked by pavement bike-weapon Mentalguy2k8[_2_] UK 25 July 5th 13 09:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.