|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail! Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:27:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail! Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn. QUOTE: Please see the Evening Standard for full footage. The "professional chauffeur" failed to make a mandatory left then proceeded to tailgate dangerously close to the cyclist. When the cyclist pulled across to the left hand side of the road the "professional" wound down his left hand window and started verbal abuse while keeping pace with the cyclist. During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again.. Attempted grievous bodily harm. END QUOTE. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 2:04:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 1:27:12 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 9:48:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? The story has managed to garner 2100 comments from the usual suspects that infest the Daily Fail! Number plates, "road tax", insurance, plastic hats, yawn. QUOTE: Please see the Evening Standard for full footage. The "professional chauffeur" failed to make a mandatory left then proceeded to tailgate dangerously close to the cyclist. When the cyclist pulled across to the left hand side of the road the "professional" wound down his left hand window and started verbal abuse while keeping pace with the cyclist. During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm. END QUOTE. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:36:41 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm. END QUOTE. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service. The police will also not be amused at the driver's illegal and dangerous driving which will mean that their cops will probably let the chaffeur learn his lesson the hard way. Case closed. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 6:55:37 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2018 at 3:36:41 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote: During the conversation the driver deliberately drifted to the left trying to drive the cyclist into a parked white transit van. This caused a minor knock between the car and cyclist but potentially lethal to the cyclist. Further down the road the chauffeur pushed the cyclist into the kerbside again. Attempted grievous bodily harm. END QUOTE. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3970106.html Nugent is not going to like that, especially if his goalposts are in the garage for their annual service. The police will also not be amused at the driver's illegal and dangerous driving which will mean that their cops will probably let the chaffeur learn his lesson the hard way. Case closed. The cops will not do anything. Clearly the fact that the driver went straight ahead from a left turn only lane, passed within inches of a cyclist, tries to force the cyclist to crash into a stationary vehicle, verbally an physically assaulted a cyclist was 'Just a Momentary Lapse of Concentration'. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when the police saw the video they just said diddums. ... (b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit of raging pique? Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply. You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant and deliberate act of criminal damage. I meant as I wrote. No more, no less. I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found guilty of a crime by a court? Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is now within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime. Is that yes or no? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? But that latter is what you were asking for. However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when the police saw the video they just said diddums. About what? The alleged obstruction? ... (b) a deliberate act of criminal damage caused by a cyclist in a fit of raging pique? Such a leading question doesn't deserve a reply. You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant and deliberate act of criminal damage. I meant as I wrote. No more, no less. You mean you can't think of a wriggle to excuse the cyclist's blatant and deliberate act of criminal damage. I thought that in UK law a person was not a criminal until found guilty of a crime by a court? Here's a hint: Sub-judice starts with the charge (when the matter is now within the jurisdiction of a court), not at the moment of the crime. Is that yes or no? No particular person is being accused. The unknown criminal scarpered. No charge will be laid (and therefore no bar on case comment will commence) until he is traced and apprehended (criminal damage is an arrestable offence). I suspectthat even if you didn't already know the detail, you had a fair idea that this is how it works. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? This person has a dashcam:- ~ he decided to go public to bleat about something; ~ we only saw edited highlights. It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts. But that latter is what you were asking for. Not in the slightest. However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when the police saw the video they just said diddums. About what? The alleged obstruction? The damage to the driver's pride. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? This person has a dashcam:- ~ he decided to go public to bleat about something; ~ we only saw edited highlights. It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts. Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash" can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed"). But that latter is what you were asking for. Not in the slightest. Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the car. That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an evasion of the issue. However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when the police saw the video they just said diddums. About what? The alleged obstruction? The damage to the driver's pride. I hope so too. But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to your property? And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit? Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist attacked by cycle weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 1 | October 17th 15 07:57 AM |
Cyclist attacked by stationary car weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 5 | August 15th 15 12:53 PM |
Cyclist attacked by sheep weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 2 | August 15th 15 08:30 AM |
Cyclist attacked by bus shelter weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 3 | March 11th 14 09:53 PM |
Norwich man attacked by pavement bike-weapon | Mentalguy2k8[_2_] | UK | 25 | July 5th 13 09:59 PM |