|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote: On 08:34ツ* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said: On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote: On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote: On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote: On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote: テつ* https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire- news/dri vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763 The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be cyclists (if they're not already). It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on reflection, explain a few things. But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which makes a difference. Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians. Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their disposal to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope for. We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill. I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at? Cyclist who kill (and injure). I expect you could name every one. I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason. I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists never hurt anyone. You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and I do not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally rare cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working. Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger. Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to danger, if any, you have in mind. My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ....and? |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 14:09 27 May 2020, JNugent said:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote: On 08:34ツ* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said: On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote: On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote: On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote: On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote: テつ* https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east- vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763 The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be cyclists (if they're not already). It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on reflection, explain a few things. But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which makes a difference. Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians. Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their disposal to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope for. We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill. I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at? Cyclist who kill (and injure). I expect you could name every one. I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason. I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists never hurt anyone. You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and I do not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally rare cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working. Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger. Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to danger, if any, you have in mind. My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sometimes the replies in this group are like tangents going off in a weird direction into some four-dimensional space system with no overlap with our world. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote: On 08:34ツ* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said: On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote: On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote: On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote: On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote: テつ* https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire- news/dri vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763 The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be cyclists (if they're not already). It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on reflection, explain a few things. But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which makes a difference. Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians. Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their disposal to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope for. We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill. I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at? Cyclist who kill (and injure). I expect you could name every one. I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason. I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists never hurt anyone. You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and I do not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally rare cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working. Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger. Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to danger, if any, you have in mind. My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 18:02 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote: On 08:34ツ* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said: On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote: On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote: On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote: On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote: テつ* https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire- news/dri vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763 The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be cyclists (if they're not already). It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on reflection, explain a few things. But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which makes a difference. Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians. Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their disposal to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope for. We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill. I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at? Cyclist who kill (and injure). I expect you could name every one. I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason. I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists never hurt anyone. You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and I do not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally rare cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working. Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger. Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to danger, if any, you have in mind. My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. How does your unproven allegation that Nugent puts his "convenience above the safety of others" relate to the statistic that 3,800 people are killed or seriously injured every year? As I recall, you made your allegation in reponse to Nugent's comment that it's a very old lie cyclists never hurt anyone. There seem to a number of bizarre non sequiturs here. Are you able to explain their connection? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote: On 08:34ツ* 26 May 2020, TMS320 said: On 26/05/2020 01:31, JNugent wrote: On 26/05/2020 00:03, TMS320 wrote: On 25/05/2020 23:45, JNugent wrote: On 25/05/2020 21:45, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 20:59, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2020 14:09, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2020 12:40, JNugent wrote: テつ* https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...ast-yorkshire- news/dri vers-stopped-humberside-police-week-4159763 The people behind the wheels of those vehicles will soon be cyclists (if they're not already). It'll be all they're qualified for. And it could, on reflection, explain a few things. But any rule breaking will be an irritation, not a danger. Which makes a difference. Tell that to the bereaved relatives of the pedestrians. Given the courts have very restricted punishments at their disposal to drivers that kill, I expect turning the perpetrator into an irritant is probably sometimes the best the relatives can hope for. We were referring, of course, to cyclists who kill. I am looking at statistics. What are you looking at? Cyclist who kill (and injure). I expect you could name every one. I knew you wouldn't want to be looking at that, for some reason. I bet you'll try to get away bwith the old, old, lie, that cyclists never hurt anyone. You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. I threaten no-one's safety. I do not ignore red traffic lights and I do not travel along footways unless on foot. Except in exceptionally rare cases of on the spot error, I comply with one-way working. Which confirms how you're in denial about your contribution to danger. Could you kindly describe exactly which of Nugent's contributions to danger, if any, you have in mind. My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data. I do not drive dangerously, whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote: On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data. I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG that they have got it wrong? I do not drive dangerously, You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger. whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms. Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way street before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the purpose was to avoid mingling with pedestrians? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 21:59 27 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote: On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data. I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG that they have got it wrong? I do not drive dangerously, You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger. whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms. Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way street before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the purpose was to avoid mingling with pedestrians? Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote: "You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. When asked to clarify it, you wrote: "My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric." There seems to be little sense to it. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 10:15:39 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
"My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric." There seems to be little sense to it. Agreed - there is little sense in the vast daily carnage attributed to killer car drivers. If aircraft or trains killed the same, there'd be an almighty outcry. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire this week
On 27/05/2020 22:15, Pamela wrote:
Without proof and largely unconnected to what went before, you wrote: "You're still in denial about putting your convenience above the safety of others. When asked to clarify it, you wrote: "My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric." There seems to be little sense to it. You really can't see any connection between driving (which is a convenience) and the number of casualties? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
The drivers stopped by police in Hull and East Yorkshire thisweek
On 27/05/2020 21:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 20:31, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 18:02, TMS320 wrote: On 27/05/2020 14:09, JNugent wrote: On 27/05/2020 08:30, TMS320 wrote: My definition of danger to pedestrians is that 3800 a year are KSId by drivers. There can be no other metric. ...and? Sorry if you are too thick to see the connection. We've gone over it enough times. You failed to connect my car - or me - with any of your imaginary data. I presume you have informed the people that compile the data for HMG that they have got it wrong? I do not drive dangerously, You've done your usual trick of changing words. I haven't said that you drive dangerously. I have said that by driving you present a danger. You say a lot of things. You never bother proving them. whereas we do know that you do ride your bicycle dangerously and without regard for pedestrians. You have admitted that, in terms. Oh, you mean my admission to going the wrong way down a one way street before a sign went up saying it is now allowed - when the purpose was to avoid mingling with pedestrians? If that was one of your admissions (or, rather, your boasts), yes. There were others, including cycling along footways, ignoring red traffic lights, etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
31 drivers have been pulled over by police in Hull | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 2 | October 17th 19 12:07 PM |
Stopped by the Police | CoreTechs | Unicycling | 59 | November 23rd 07 10:08 AM |
60% of drivers give false details when stopped. | spindrift | UK | 87 | November 27th 06 04:31 PM |
Tour of Yorkshire England, 2005. Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors. | [email protected] | Rides | 1 | June 22nd 05 11:00 AM |
A cycletour of Yorkshire, Yorkshire Dales and Yorkshire Moors, 2005. | [email protected] | UK | 1 | June 13th 05 10:51 AM |