Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

Pamela wrote:

On 20:01 15 May 2020, Kelly said:

JNugent wrote:

On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
For the Nth time: this is NOT normal times. The child should have
kept, by her parents, at least two metres away from those victims,
at all relevant times.

As far as I am aware, everybody in the whole group knows that. In
fact, in my very first reply to you in this thread I said: "...I
agree with you that current emergency regulations have been broken.
I think the police should at least remind the father of his
responsibility towards ensuring his daughter maintains social
distancing rules. Ironically, the police can see where the father
failed in that regard from the father's own video, something that he
and his wife brought to the attention of the police themselves."

So, what could be clearer than that?

This vital fact seems to be totally ignored. It should not be.

Eight posts from here up, in this thread, TMS320 says: "With the
benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have been better
had the father waited until the path was widened out a bit." to
which I replied, "That is it, really, in a nutshell." As in, yes,
it was the father's responsibility (not sure if the mother was
actually there) to keep his daughter two metres away from other
people - of course, it was, and we all know that.

Not a word of that is about the behaviour required as a result of
current problems.

Not if that is the way you choose to see it.

That HAS to be the only way to see such things at present.

Every word of it apply in normal circumstances.

Then I added: "...all those involved in the 'incident' will be that
little bit wiser in future." But it looks as though you don't think
the victim man has anything to learn from this incident.

What can he "learn"?

How about, if he had responded better everyone would have thought
better of him for being an obvious good guy? It's not obligatory, I
know, and can accept that too. Maybe he likes playing the bad guy. In
which case, having delivered a volley of verbal abuse, giving the
child's bike a good kick on departing was a clever move.

People have different personalities. Most people, whatever their natural
tendencies, will take exception to being run into by a bicycle. There
will almost certainly have been a certain ount of shock coming into
play. Don't be so judgmental of natural reactions. Be judgmental of
deliberate acts.

That a cyclist might run into him from behind on a footpath? That
some people - regrettably, including the parents of some small
children - will not behave responsibly?

He very possibly already knew that. After all, everyone else does.

Okay, I also wouldn't have thought either of those where something he
had to learn (they're, as you say, both possibilities that people are
aware of. Although I have, in fact, never been run into from behind on
a footpath... just lucky, I guess.)

There's little else that he and his companion could "learn" from the
incident.

Okay, that's
your view but I still think he could have responded better, even
under these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil from the child
in horror when she brushed up against him, as if in fear of being
exposed to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He didn't stand back
from her at all, on the contrary, he held his ground and
remonstrated quite aggressively with the father, who then couldn't
immediately retrieve his distressed child. As far as I'm concerned,
the victim man would have gained far more sympathy for his situation
if only he had acted a bit more responsibly himself. And all I have
done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he and
his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean that
the parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the
main point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of
the social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote:
A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when they
refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been updated as
such.
Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...icycle-police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video went
viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and social
distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being broken
by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Strange how it wasn't the gobby chav who called the police after failing
to supervise his 6 year old daughter and letting her ride dangerously in
public even though she hadn't learnt to use the brakes.

I think what's happened here is that the father and mother called the
police urged on by their Facebook friends as they all were upset by
the way this victim guy had blocked their daughter off her bike and
then been so unpleasant afterwards. The father's video of what
happened turned out to be a classic, in no small measure thanks to
victim guy's natural reactions complete with boot action. And so the
video went viral on social media. When the police thus became involved
and said they wanted to trace this victim couple, it was the couple
themselves who got in touch with the police to turn themselves in, as
it were.

Not only the daughter but the chav approached the couple closer than 2
metres. The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
distancing behaviour.

Could it be that this couple weren't to bothered by the Covid-19
thing? I'm not too good at estimating their type of age but healthy
under 45 year olds don't have much to worry about, do they? At no time
did they bother to try and get out of the way or move away from what
was happening at all. And the father had to come in to retrieve his
distressed daughter. Anyway, eventually, it could be that the couple
just wanted to extricate themselves from this whole affair as soon as
possible and the police wanted to do the same - i.e. get rid of the
couple plus the father, mother and 6 year old daughter together with
all the tricky publicity accruing. Who knows?

On 15/05/2020 22:14, Pamela wrote:
On 20:45 15 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 15/05/2020 16:24, Pamela wrote:
On 15:56 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to
resort to underhand methods.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with Nugent's twisting and dishonesty.
And his use of meaningless big words.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same
room as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to
win their argument in the way the lower orders often do.

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Perhaps if you undertake not to quote dishonestly Nugent would forgive you,
although I can't guarantee it.

The difference between you and is that I have no esteem for Nugent. The
sentence right at the top is one of his lies. But you are so besotted
you've fallen for it.

On 15/05/2020 20:47, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:45:07 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Why do you think he has been in my killfile for 10 years?

There isn't much on television that interests me so it passes the time.

On 15/05/2020 20:01, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
For the Nth time: this is NOT normal times. The child should have kept,
by her parents, at least two metres away from those victims, at all
relevant times.

As far as I am aware, everybody in the whole group knows that. In
fact, in my very first reply to you in this thread I said: "...I agree
with you that current emergency regulations have been broken. I think
the police should at least remind the father of his responsibility
towards ensuring his daughter maintains social distancing rules.
Ironically, the police can see where the father failed in that regard
from the father's own video, something that he and his wife brought to
the attention of the police themselves."

So, what could be clearer than that?

This vital fact seems to be totally ignored. It should not be.

Eight posts from here up, in this thread, TMS320 says: "With the
benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have been better
had the father waited until the path was widened out a bit." to which
I replied, "That is it, really, in a nutshell." As in, yes, it was
the father's responsibility (not sure if the mother was actually
there) to keep his daughter two metres away from other people - of
course, it was, and we all know that.

Not a word of that is about the behaviour required as a result of
current problems.

Not if that is the way you choose to see it.

That HAS to be the only way to see such things at present.

Every word of it apply in normal circumstances.

Then I added: "...all those involved in the 'incident' will be that
little bit wiser in future." But it looks as though you don't think
the victim man has anything to learn from this incident.

What can he "learn"?

How about, if he had responded better everyone would have thought
better of him for being an obvious good guy? It's not obligatory, I
know, and can accept that too. Maybe he likes playing the bad guy. In
which case, having delivered a volley of verbal abuse, giving the
child's bike a good kick on departing was a clever move.

People have different personalities. Most people, whatever their natural
tendencies, will take exception to being run into by a bicycle. There
will almost certainly have been a certain ount of shock coming into
play. Don't be so judgmental of natural reactions. Be judgmental of
deliberate acts.

That a cyclist might run into him from behind on a footpath? That some
people - regrettably, including the parents of some small children -
will not behave responsibly?

He very possibly already knew that. After all, everyone else does.

Okay, I also wouldn't have thought either of those where something he
had to learn (they're, as you say, both possibilities that people are
aware of. Although I have, in fact, never been run into from behind on
a footpath... just lucky, I guess.)

There's little else that he and his companion could "learn" from the
incident.

Okay, that's
your view but I still think he could have responded better, even under
these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil from the child in
horror when she brushed up against him, as if in fear of being exposed
to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He didn't stand back from her at
all, on the contrary, he held his ground and remonstrated quite
aggressively with the father, who then couldn't immediately retrieve
his distressed child. As far as I'm concerned, the victim man would
have gained far more sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a
bit more responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he and
his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean that the
parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the main
point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of the
social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote:
A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when they
refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been updated
as such.
Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...icycle-police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video went
viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and social
distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being broken
by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

For many parents, neither they nor their children can do any wrong.

Sometimes, they are right.

Often, they are wrong.

On 15/05/2020 23:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/2020 22:14, Pamela wrote:
On 20:45Â* 15 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 15/05/2020 16:24, Pamela wrote:
On 15:56Â* 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to
resort to underhand methods.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with Nugent's twisting and dishonesty.
And his use of meaningless big words.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same
room as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to
win their argument in the way the lower orders often do.

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Perhaps if you undertake not to quote dishonestly Nugent would forgive
you,
although I can't guarantee it.

The difference between you and is that I have no esteem for Nugent. The
sentence right at the top is one of his lies. But you are so besotted
you've fallen for it.

What? Despite the fact that it is 100% accurate?

colwyn wrote:

On 15/05/2020 09:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
For the Nth time: this is NOT normal times. The child should have kept,
by her parents, at least two metres away from those victims, at all
relevant times.

As far as I am aware, everybody in the whole group knows that. In
fact, in my very first reply to you in this thread I said: "...I agree
with you that current emergency regulations have been broken. I think
the police should at least remind the father of his responsibility
towards ensuring his daughter maintains social distancing rules.
Ironically, the police can see where the father failed in that regard
from the father's own video, something that he and his wife brought to
the attention of the police themselves."

So, what could be clearer than that?

This vital fact seems to be totally ignored. It should not be.

Eight posts from here up, in this thread, TMS320 says: "With the
benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have been better
had the father waited until the path was widened out a bit." to which
I replied, "That is it, really, in a nutshell." As in, yes, it was
the father's responsibility (not sure if the mother was actually
there) to keep his daughter two metres away from other people - of
course, it was, and we all know that.

Then I added: "...all those involved in the 'incident' will be that
little bit wiser in future." But it looks as though you don't think
the victim man has anything to learn from this incident. Okay, that's
your view but I still think he could have responded better, even under
these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil from the child in
horror when she brushed up against him, as if in fear of being exposed
to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He didn't stand back from her at
all, on the contrary, he held his ground and remonstrated quite
aggressively with the father, who then couldn't immediately retrieve
his distressed child. As far as I'm concerned, the victim man would
have gained far more sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a
bit more responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the main
point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

Unguent reminded me to read "Don Quixote" - not forgetting his trusted
steed Rosinante
Quote: The scariest dragons and fiercest giants... usually turn out to
be no more than windmills.

Hi, please forgive this tardy reply to your post, but first I wanted
to familiarise myself with 'Don Quixote' (not forgetting his trusted
steed Rosinante). And, incidentally, I have added a new word to my
'vocabulary enhancer' list (viz. unguent). Then, on a public forum,
it's sometimes not too easy to talk as openly as you might wish. Can I
just say that your intriguing post has already proven to be somewhat
prophetic.

Coming back to this case which happened along the Blackwell Trail in
Nottinghamshi it ended in a row essentially between a male
dogwalker and a girl's father. The definite major issue, as put
forward in this group by more than one person, was that a breach of
the social distancing rules by an errant father and his uncontrolled
daughter had been committed. And any suggestion that the dogwalker had
behaved poorly seemed to be no more than a minor annoying and
distracting issue.

Yet in the media it is definitely the male dogwalker who is pilloried
as the 'bad guy' rather than the father with his young daughter. Then
when the police get to investigate this incident they decide the whole
affair has been a 'misunderstanding' between the parties concerned and
no action is apparently taken.

So what happened? It seems either the major issue wasn't quite a major
as it was made out to be or the minor issue wasn't as minor as it was
made out to be because in the end, both issues cancelled each other
out equitably. Strange one that, but there you go, we live and
learn...

On 16/05/2020 09:12, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
You only post boring **** anyway.

He is a bicyclist.
This is a bicycling group.
You are not a bicyclist.
His "boring ****" has much more relevance than your inanities.

On 16/05/2020 09:28, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 10:12:39 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 9:45:15 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:45:07 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no
doubt you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Why do you think he has been in my killfile for 10 years?

Cowards use a killfile.

It saves me reading tedious tripe that offers nothing to serious
debate and is my right to employ as I wish.

Then killfile me.
You only post boring **** anyway.

Then killfile me.

I don't do that.



You seem to have killfiled me.

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 10:20:25 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
behaviour.

They do - it's called a public order offence and using foul and abusive language applies to this thug in this case.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

On 16/05/2020 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2020 23:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/2020 22:14, Pamela wrote:
On 20:45Â* 15 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 15/05/2020 16:24, Pamela wrote:
On 15:56Â* 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to
resort to underhand methods.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with Nugent's twisting and dishonesty.
And his use of meaningless big words.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same
room as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to
win their argument in the way the lower orders often do.

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Perhaps if you undertake not to quote dishonestly Nugent would
forgive you,
although I can't guarantee it.

The difference between you and is that I have no esteem for Nugent.
The sentence right at the top is one of his lies. But you are so
besotted you've fallen for it.

What? Despite the fact that it is 100% accurate?

"100% accurate"... what does that mean? If your statement is accurate,
the number is a pointless embellishment.

And please provide the proof behind your allegation.