Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic

On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.

On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 6:56:04 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.

Correct - it merely said that the driver cleared off without leaving any details, but that didn't matter as his lorry was plastered with his details. So much so that his gaffers have suspended him.

On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other
motor-vehicle user, to give his or her name and address to
any passing cyclist who peremptorily and officiously
demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.

The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or
other "contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed
in the street was automatically peremptory and officious.

There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver
for his details. Please remember this happened in the UK, not
Nugentworld.

Curiously, my newsreader now seems to be censoring the Nuglet's replies.
Though the above does show that it has trouble comprehending the
meanings of 'yes' and 'no'. I have just discovered that had I written
'yis' and 'nah' there may have been a slight glimmer of understanding.

On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.

If the driver was not asked for his contact details, why was the cyclist
surprised or exercised about their not having been handed over?

Did he perhaps expect the driver to stop and insist on handing over the
details of his own instigation?

If so, why?

On 26/11/2020 20:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to
Â*any passing cyclist who peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.

The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or
Â*other "contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed
Â*in the street was automatically peremptory and officious.

There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for
his details. Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.

Curiously, my newsreader now seems to be censoring the Nuglet's replies.
Though the above does show that it has trouble comprehending the
meanings of 'yes' and 'no'. I have just discovered that had I written
'yis' and 'nah' there may have been a slight glimmer of understanding.

Is that really the best you can do?

On 27/11/2020 03:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/11/2020 20:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other
motor-vehicle user, to give his or her name and address
to any passing cyclist who peremptorily and officiously
demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.

The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address
(or other "contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he
passed in the street was automatically peremptory and
officious.

There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the
driver for his details. Please remember this happened in the UK,
not Nugentworld.

Curiously, my newsreader now seems to be censoring the Nuglet's
replies. Though the above does show that it has trouble
comprehending the meanings of 'yes' and 'no'. I have just
discovered that had I written 'yis' and 'nah' there may have been a
slight glimmer of understanding.

Is that really the best you can do?

There was no need to do any better.

On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 03:15:13 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.
If the driver was not asked for his contact details, why was the cyclist
surprised or exercised about their not having been handed over?

Did he perhaps expect the driver to stop and insist on handing over the
details of his own instigation?

If so, why?

I have no idea, I wasn't there.
All we can go on is the report and there is nothing to suggest the victim asked for details in any fashion.
What facts did you base your conclusion on?

On 27/11/2020 12:05, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 03:15:13 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.
If the driver was not asked for his contact details, why was the cyclist
surprised or exercised about their not having been handed over?

Did he perhaps expect the driver to stop and insist on handing over the
details of his own instigation?

If so, why?

I have no idea

I know.

On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 16:23:12 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/11/2020 12:05, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 03:15:13 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.
If the driver was not asked for his contact details, why was the cyclist
surprised or exercised about their not having been handed over?

Did he perhaps expect the driver to stop and insist on handing over the
details of his own instigation?

If so, why?

I have no idea
I know.

Har! Har! Har! and indeed Har!.
I think we should promote you to a halfwit.

On 27/11/2020 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 27/11/2020 12:05, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 03:15:13 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/11/2020 18:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 14:45:38 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 21:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 25/11/2020 15:54, JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2020 10:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/11/2020 16:32, JNugent wrote:

Does the law *require* a lorry-driver, or any other motor-vehicle
user, to give his or her name and address to any passing
cyclist who
peremptorily and officiously demands it?

Did the cyclist peremptorily and officiously demand it?

Any such unauthorised request is peremptory and officious.

Read my question again. The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'.
The cyclist's requiring of, or expecting, the name and address (or
other
"contact details" if you insist) of a lorry driver he passed in the
street was automatically peremptory and officious.


There is nothing in the article to say the victim asked the driver
for his details.
Please remember this happened in the UK, not Nugentworld.
If the driver was not asked for his contact details, why was the cyclist
surprised or exercised about their not having been handed over?

Did he perhaps expect the driver to stop and insist on handing over the
details of his own instigation?

If so, why?

I have no idea

I know.

Well done for admitting you were that incompetent driver. How many more
instances of endangering innocent cyclists do you want to own up to?
C'mon, get it off your chest.