|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Near Miss of the Day 501: HGV driver said he had to cut cornerbecause of fast oncoming traffic
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Near Miss of the Day 490: Van driver makes close pass on cyclist intooncoming traffic | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 1 | October 28th 20 02:01 PM |
VIDEO: See the moment oncoming city traffic drives towards cyclist incycle lane | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 0 | September 3rd 20 02:41 PM |
Near Miss of the Day 416: HGV driver powers past cyclist despite oncoming van – police take very swift action | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 0 | May 29th 20 05:29 PM |
Murphy rode diagonally across the carriageway into oncoming traffic.” | MrCheerful | UK | 10 | June 30th 19 10:24 PM |
Motorist who punched cyclist into oncoming traffic jailed for twoyears | Bod[_5_] | UK | 0 | October 27th 18 07:31 AM |