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

Mobile phone using driver gets karma!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 12th 18, 11:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 08:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 02:08, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 22:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.

I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding
on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another
cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a
Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and
hold your breath.

Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize?

It was a sarky reply to your effort.

A failed sarky reply, you mean.

Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between
riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the
pavement by a different person at a different time and place.

There was no conection between them except for the fact that they
both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted)
offences by cyclists.

When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for
motor vehicles?


No, that just isn't in the same league as your previous attempt at a
non-sequitur. You'll have to think of a better one if you're going to
top your effort of a day or two back (which is still on track for the
annual award).


Nugent's standard response. Make up up a paragraph using lots of random
words.

You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's
correct fact to a collision on the pavement.


I did not.


Well, we are are nearly into pantomine season.


No, that's not even out of the startiung blocks. Hardly a non-sequitur
at all, in fact.

But still, the panto season approaches, as you say. And that's lucky for
you, as it's the only time of the year when you can get the employment
for which you are ideally suited.

One question, though: are you the front end or the rear end? Perhps
you're skilled enough to play both ends at once.

You certainly don't get the job of leading the community singing from
the roll-down lyric sheet due to your poor reading and comprehension skills.

Do you want to start again and try to see where you went wrong?

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was
one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

" The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are
doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates
onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of
the word "or".



Ads
  #42  
Old December 12th 18, 03:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there was
one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are
doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates
onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use of
the word "or".


Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's
statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you
must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you
will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and
cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to
Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.
  #43  
Old December 12th 18, 04:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there
was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are
doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden gates
onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use
of the word "or".


Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that Simon's
statement of fact made you think about two publicised events. Then you
must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much as you
will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then try and
cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words.


There was no "connection" between the cases except for the most obvious
and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs
(most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or
convenience of any of their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to
Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.


Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause
great harm - you mean?

  #44  
Old December 12th 18, 06:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there
was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who are
doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden
gates onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use
of the word "or".


Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that
Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events.
Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as much
as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake then
try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of words.


There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except for the most obvious
and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know, those scofflaw chavs
(most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and neither does the safety or
convenience of any of their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to
Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.


Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause
great harm - you mean?


No point replying to Simon.

Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble?
  #45  
Old December 12th 18, 09:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever there
was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on the other
hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as some of them find to
accept that, especially when the risk accrues to other people who
are doing such outrageous [things] such as walking out of the garden
gates onto the footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to the use
of the word "or".

Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that
Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised events.
Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and bluster as
much as you will though it is always in your nature to make a mistake
then try and cover it with an exponential increase in the number of
words.


There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases except
for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists. You know,
those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule matters and
neither does the safety or convenience of any of their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by replying to
Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.


Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't cause
great harm - you mean?


No point replying to Simon.


If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being
said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the
lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he didn't
know what to do next anyway.

Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble?


That's a bit better... but not in the same league as your previous
attempt (which is still on course for a decisive win in Non-Sequitur of
the Year 2018).
  #46  
Old December 13th 18, 01:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 12/12/2018 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46,
wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists
save for a very few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of
the human body, on the other hand, always
apply to cyclists, as difficult as some
of them find to accept that, especially
when the risk accrues to other people who
are doing such outrageous such as walking
out of the garden gates onto the footway,
or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever
there was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few
exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk
accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous
[things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the
footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to
the use of the word "or".

Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that
Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised
events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and
bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature
to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential
increase in the number of words.

There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases
except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists.
You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule
matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of
their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by
replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.

Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't
cause great harm - you mean?


No point replying to Simon.


If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being
said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the
lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he
didn't know what to do next anyway.


I still don't see the point you're trying to make by replying to Simon
and then claiming "no connection".

Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble?


That's a bit better...


Well, thank you. But you failed to answer "yes it does".
  #47  
Old December 13th 18, 04:26 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 13/12/2018 00:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 17:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 12/12/2018 14:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/12/2018 10:52, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46,
wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists
save for a very few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of
the human body, on the other hand, always
apply to cyclists, as difficult as some
of them find to accept that, especially
when the risk accrues to other people who
are doing such outrageous such as walking
out of the garden gates onto the footway,
or crossing the road.


...

Simple Simon [now there's another pantomime stalwart, if ever
there was one] said:

"Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very few
exceptions".

And I responded:

"The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the risk
accrues to other people who are doing such outrageous
[things] such as walking out of the garden gates onto the
footway, or crossing the road".

I'll give you a hint. This time, pay particular attention to
the use of the word "or".

Yes, it's still there at the top, never snipped. You admit that
Â*Simon's statement of fact made you think about two publicised
Â*events. Then you must think there is a connection. Blether and
Â*bluster as much as you will though it is always in your nature
to make a mistake then try and cover it with an exponential
increase in the number of words.

There was no "connection" betweare waste of space.en the cases
except for the most obvious and non-controversial one: cyclists.
You know, those scofflaw chavs (most of 'em) for whom no rule
matters and neither does the safety or convenience of any of
their fellow citizens.

I'd rather have not had to be so blunt, but you did insist.

Here's your chance. What point were you trying to make by
replying to Simon? Try to leave out irrelevant stuff.

Other than the very obvious - the fact that cyclists cannot be
prosecuted for speeding does not mean that they can't and don't
cause great harm - you mean?

No point replying to Simon.


If you say so. But you saw it. And now you understand what was being
Â*said, you behave like the dog who has caught the car tyre when the
lights turned red and slinks away, tail between legs, because he
didn't know what to do next anyway.


I still don't see the point you're trying to make by replying to Simon
and then claiming "no connection".


My response clearly was connected to the post to which I was responding,
but the two example categories I mentioned were not connected except by
cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent pedestrians.

That you don't (or don't want to) understand that is hardly my fault.
The connection was plain enough.

Just a Pavlov response. Does it also make you dribble?


That's a bit better...


Well, thank you. But you failed to answer "yes it does".


Now you're drifing off your best form again. You need much better
non-sequitur material than that in order to maintain the high standard
you set yourself a couple of days back.
  #48  
Old December 13th 18, 10:40 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 13/12/2018 03:26, JNugent wrote:

My response clearly *was connected* to the post to which I was responding,
but the two example categories I mentioned were *not connected* except by
cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent pedestrians.


  #49  
Old December 13th 18, 03:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 350
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 13/12/2018 09:40, TMS320 wrote:

On 13/12/2018 03:26, JNugent wrote:

My response clearly *was connected* to the post to which I was
responding, but the two example categories I mentioned were *not
connected* except by cyclists and their harmful effects on innocent
pedestrians.


Do you always have trouble with English?

  #50  
Old December 13th 18, 03:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 10:13:43 AM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:58:09 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:45:57 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light usually
stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough time to
stop safely*


I have just checked the cyclist's video again and the driver DID stop well before the RED light, so no problem there, BUT after the lights went to green he shot off and crashed into the back of the car in front as he had wasted so much time arguing the toss with the cyclist at the lights.

SEE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0x...A#action=share


Lest people think that the clip was snipped to show the driver in a bad light, the cyclist has also provided the video IN FULL he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_NHo39b88


Now on the Daily Mail website!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nts-later.html
 




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
Mobile phone driver reported and pulled Alycidon UK 1 January 27th 16 05:03 PM
Where is a mobile phone :-) Box UK 5 September 7th 09 02:53 PM
Where is a mobile phone :-) Box Techniques 0 September 6th 09 09:12 PM
Where is a mobile phone Box Techniques 3 August 29th 09 01:11 AM
Where is a mobile phone :-) PEO from ITALY UK 1 October 27th 06 08:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.