But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 11:10, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 09:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 01:43, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss

Did he also report the cyclist seen to pass around the wrong side
of the previous island?

Is there anything in the Highway Code about it? I couldn't
find anything in a quick scan.

Then do a slow scan.

Can't be bothered. It's only an arrow on a post.

And a traffic island.

Shrug. The straightforward thing don't blunder through when it
is not clear.

Is there a challenge to rearrange that jumble of words into a
little-known phrase or saying?

In fact, the offence would be exactly the same in either case.

I have been overtaken on a couple of occasions by somebody going
the wrong side. On which occasions that it was perfectly safe to do
so.

Highway signage is there to be complied with. That particularly
applies to "Keep Left" and "No Entry" signs.

You... er... do know what those are, do you?

I can recognise when a road user does something "wrong" safely and
when doing something "right" unsafely. I always prefer the former.

You don't know what they are or what they mean?

I know what an arrow means, thank you. I also know that the shape and
colour of a sign emphasises its official importance. I also have
sufficient sense to recognise when failing to follow the sign actually
matters.

That at least explains something about you and people like you.

You have no idea about me or people like me. But perhaps some people
don't come across as the stickler you claim to be.

It would be interesting to know whether you really are the stickler you
claim to be. Given the maxim "rules are for the guidance of the wise and
the obedience of fools", one has wonder where you think you place yourself.

Many cyclists seem not to.

Sigh ...the usual it's the driver doing something wrong but it's the
cyclist's fault.

Wake up!

Is that the best you can do?

Whatever the driver is alleged to have done was also done by a cyclist
a couple of seconds earlier (it's there on the video).

The driver not only broke rule 144 but also intended to cross the mouth
of a junction on the wrong side of the road. The latter is a folly on
its own even without the risk of causing a head on crash.

You're condoning a driver's dangerous manouevre.

I am taking note of the fact that he had a partial defence in
mitigation, which the report states was *accepted* by the court.

He had been the victim of a crime committed by a cyclist. That is
official, accepted by the judge (according to that very hostile cyclist
who created the video).

Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver?

Or was that too Totally Different [TM]?

Or was that Totally Different [TM]?

Yes, one of them wasn't following rule 144.

That's an unusual but pleasant silence.

Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both
occasions (separated by a few seconds).

Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to
cyclists.