0.045% of offences committed by cyclists

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:14:15 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:25:12 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 28/11/2013 18:07, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:36:00 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 28/11/2013 08:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:

However you like to skew the figures, speeding by motorists is
endemic. RLJ by cyclists is ...

...even more common than that.

Haven't you read the subject line?

Just 0.045% of road traffic offences are committed by cyclists,
according to official police figures.



The figures show how many are prosecuted, nothing to do with how many
offend, nor how many possible offences each group can commit.

Irrelevant. Any who allegedly commit crimes are innocent until proven
guilty.


In court cases: yes.

In every day activities and in the view of sane and rational people : no.

I think you will find that the OED definition of guilty is:

"culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing."

Spot that: no mention of a court case.

The fact that there were no court cases makes that definition quite appropriate
in this thread.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:50:54 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


do you agree that there are far more motorists than there are cyclists?

I agree that there are more than 9 cyclists for every 20,000
motorists.

do you agree that there are far more possible offences for motorists
than for cyclists?

I agree both cyclists and motorists have opportunity to commit
offences.


If your name is Crispin and you don't like the question, then just answer one
which was not asked.

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:32:38 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:59:26 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Do you agree that it is easier to identify car drivers as opposed to
cyclists?

No. A witness with good eyesight cannot always see motorists clearly
through glass, whereas cyclists are much more visible.

pathetic

OK - try this little experiment.

Next time you drive down the high street, pick a car coming towards
you and try to describe the driver. Next pick a bicycle coming towards
you and try to describe the cyclist. Out of the two, which can you
describe most clearly?


I think if you are trying to prove what a knob you are, then you have well and
truly succeeded.

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:53:43 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


Just 0.045% of road traffic offences are committed by cyclists,
according to official police figures.

That's you telling a lie (the "official police figures" do not say
that), and a rather transparent one at that.

Yes they do.

You are pathetic.

The subject of this thread is "0.045% of offences committed by cyclists" which
implies in this newsgroup: throughout the United Kingdom.

Your claim is incorrect.

You are not fit to teach school children - never mind about the adults here

On 29/11/2013 00:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:59:26 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Do you agree that it is easier to identify car drivers as opposed to
cyclists?

No. A witness with good eyesight cannot always see motorists clearly
through glass, whereas cyclists are much more visible.

pathetic

OK - try this little experiment.

Next time you drive down the high street, pick a car coming towards
you and try to describe the driver. Next pick a bicycle coming towards
you and try to describe the cyclist. Out of the two, which can you
describe most clearly?


which would you be able to identify and track for the purposes of
prosecution? remember, that is what this thread is about. attempting
to avoid the questions by pathetic cyclo weaseling is really, honestly
too boring, and seriously I had thought better of you.

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:33:48 +0000, Judith wrote:

You are pathetic.

Why do people insult others?

For someone who has found the wrong outlet for their stress, insulting
others gives them comfort for their own imperfections, makes them feel
powerful, and helps them to feel better about themselves. Helplessness
for this individual is the root of all of his or her emotional problems
and insulting people is their outlet...

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:41:45 +0000, Tarcap wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 15:06:15 UTC, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

So you don't look like a ****t. It looks like you wrote what I did.
Do you want people to think you wrote my text?

It'll take a lot more than that to stop him looking like a ****.

Nothing could stop you sounding like a ****

I really think it is a great compliment to be accused of sounding like a
**** by the carprat.

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:30:32 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:32:38 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:59:26 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Do you agree that it is easier to identify car drivers as opposed to
cyclists?

No. A witness with good eyesight cannot always see motorists clearly
through glass, whereas cyclists are much more visible.

pathetic

OK - try this little experiment.

Next time you drive down the high street, pick a car coming towards
you and try to describe the driver. Next pick a bicycle coming towards
you and try to describe the cyclist. Out of the two, which can you
describe most clearly?


I think if you are trying to prove what a knob you are, then you have well and
truly succeeded.

Oh dear! I seem to have upset you again. I am so sorry, it was a
complete accident.

On 29/11/2013 09:03, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:30:32 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:32:38 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:59:26 +0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Do you agree that it is easier to identify car drivers as opposed to
cyclists?

No. A witness with good eyesight cannot always see motorists clearly
through glass, whereas cyclists are much more visible.

pathetic

OK - try this little experiment.

Next time you drive down the high street, pick a car coming towards
you and try to describe the driver. Next pick a bicycle coming towards
you and try to describe the cyclist. Out of the two, which can you
describe most clearly?


I think if you are trying to prove what a knob you are, then you have well and
truly succeeded.

Oh dear! I seem to have upset you again. I am so sorry, it was a
complete accident.


are you hoping for compo?

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:27:59 +0000, Judith
wrote:

Irrelevant. Any who allegedly commit crimes are innocent until proven
guilty.


In court cases: yes.

In every day activities and in the view of sane and rational people : no.

I think you will find that the OED definition of guilty is:

"culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing."

Spot that: no mention of a court case.

The fact that there were no court cases makes that definition quite appropriate
in this thread.

Is it up to you to decide who "culpable" then?