Fake Youtube videos

On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car
approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles -
sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their
behaviour.


When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing.

JNugent wrote:

On 19/05/2020 19:18, Kelly wrote:

JNugent wrote:

All citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) cyclists
today routinely break traffic law...

Thanks for putting that question mark against most. The whole
statement sounds quite damning, and the most (with a question mark) is
on reflection (speaking as a cyclist) a dispassionate addition. Well,
let's face it, the statement is quite damning.

Let us now just consider our companion road users, car drivers. Can we
say: 'All citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) car
drivers today routinely break traffic law.'

Of course we can.

Good.

Whether it is as true as the one about cyclists is another question.

....I guess it would have been too easy otherwise.

Is that statement
dispassionately true in the same way as the one applying to cyclists?

No, it isn't.

All drivers occasionally breach road traffic rules. Sometimes
deliberately, often inadvertently.

Nevertheless, I would argue that very few drivers leave home in the
morning with the attitude that they are going to break speed limits,
pass red traffic lights, proceed the wrong way in a one-way system,
drive during the hours of darkness without lights switched on, etc, etc.
A very few might, but that proportion will be vanishingly small.

Okay.

I'll give you an example. I have found myself driving the wrong way
along along a one-way street a few times, in nearly 50 years' driving
(and something in excess of a million miles driven). Each time it was
inadvertent. On each occasion, I took steps to rectify the position
immediately (or as immediately as possible in a narrow street). The last
such incident took place about fifteen years ago in one of those towns
just north west of Birmingham. I was heading for a late night
supermarket for a bottle of wine to have in my hotel room. I didn't know
the area and misread a town centre junction. It happens.

On none of those occasions did I intend to ignore traffic signs, traffic
lights, speed limit signs or anything else. It was just a result of
human frailty.

I can remember when cyclists took the same approach (I'm that old). But
you cannot realistically claim that cyclists ignoring red traffic lights
or riding on the footway have done that accidentally. And I know you
would not try to claim it.

Today, only some cyclists set out planning to obey traffic law do - and
you know that to be true.

Cyclists and car drivers, though, set up and face different
consequences when they fail to obey traffic law, even though you may
compare them as being equal to each other. I am not trying to make
excuses already for some cyclists, I appreciate this is serious issue.
Cars and bicycles have similar obligations on the roads but there are
many differences between them - protection afforded the users of cars
being a major one.

Well, (speaking as a driver who considers their chance of being caught
for speeding to be highly unlikely - touch wood) I would say it is.

Being caught for speeding used to be unusual. Not now. Not for nothing
do most manufacturers now fit a controllable speed limiter as an adjunct
to cruise control. Not for nothing do I always have it set to 30mph, the
only open question being whether it is switched in (in a 30 zone) or out
or set to a higher limit (in a zone with a higher limit). The speed
limiter is the best accessory for motor vehicles invented in the last
twenty years. Well, joint-first with the satnav.

Yes, interesting points I hadn't considered before.

Even careful and aware car drivers know how easy it is to exceed the
speed limit, albeit if only fleetingly.

Absolutely.

So speaking as a pedestrian then, I could dispassionately say: 'All
citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) car drivers and
cyclist today routinely break traffic law'.

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car
approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles -
sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their
behaviour.

I know what you mean, but on certain occasions I am particularly
reminded that cyclists are much more like pedestrians than they are
like car drivers. As far as vulnerability goes you could consider them
to be similar to pedestrians on bicycles (if you see what I mean). Yet
they are required to travel with road traffic and denied the
protection of the pavement - that can be quite perilous especially for
young cyclists.

Can you, and the rest of the group, accept that?

I can, subject to that distinction(s) I made above, and of which you
were already well aware in any case.

Even with the distinction(s) you made and, as you say, I am aware of,
that is still good.


(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.)

On 19/05/2020 20:18, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car
approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles -
sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their
behaviour.


When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing.

In Lord Nelson Street (a minor side street where a great aunt of mine
and my great-grandmother) used to live and which I know very well?

A street where there is virtually no traffic?

You are making it up.

To no effect, of course.

On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote:

(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.)

Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger
caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the
road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done
unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in
full knowledge.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of
mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the
former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.

TMS320 wrote:

On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote:

(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.)

Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger
caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to
be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the
road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done
unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in
full knowledge.

I understand what you are saying, in your whole post here, and I
wouldn't argue against any of it.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of
mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the
former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.

At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a
sympathetic one would be even better...

On 20/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote:

(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.)

Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger
caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to
be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise.

I daresay the culture comes from the idea that if there is a body and
you have blood on your hands, it is essential to establish the
circumstances and your state of mind. The traditional innocent until
proven guilty.

With roads, statistics need to be involved so it is far more
complicated. There are acts that have a pattern of causing harm, even
though no harm was caused on a particular occasion. So we have fixed
penalties for things such as speeding and drunk driving. FPs ignore the
driver's state of mind.

FPs run against the traditional view of law. Some argue that it is wrong.

At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a
sympathetic one would be even better...

If criticism comes from a pedestrian, I think it is fair to consider
everything. If it's from a driver, they have nothing to say.

On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car
approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles -
sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their
behaviour.


When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord
Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the
footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just
trying to keep the traffic flowing.

You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim about
"attempted murder". A police report would do.

TMS320 wrote:

On 20/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote:

(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.)

Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger
caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to
be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise.

I daresay the culture comes from the idea that if there is a body and
you have blood on your hands, it is essential to establish the
circumstances and your state of mind. The traditional innocent until
proven guilty.

With roads, statistics need to be involved so it is far more
complicated. There are acts that have a pattern of causing harm, even
though no harm was caused on a particular occasion. So we have fixed
penalties for things such as speeding and drunk driving. FPs ignore the
driver's state of mind.

FPs run against the traditional view of law. Some argue that it is wrong.

I have been reading up on FPN's and note how they were initially
introduced to deal with minor parking offences but have since been
expanded to cover many traffic offences. They certainly discourage you
from opting for a court hearing.

At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a
sympathetic one would be even better...

If criticism comes from a pedestrian, I think it is fair to consider
everything. If it's from a driver, they have nothing to say.

Okay, you are not reticent over this issue then. I probably still have
a bit of work to do on my self-confidence and self-reliance before I
could entirely say the same of myself.

On 20/05/2020 11:21, Pamela wrote:
On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car
approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles -
sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their
behaviour.


When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord
Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the
footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just
trying to keep the traffic flowing.

You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim about
"attempted murder". A police report would do.

I know Lord Nelson Street *very* well. I have known it all my life,
because my family (both sides) have residential and other roots in the
area dating from before WW2 right up until the 1970s.

There is no appreciable traffic in Lord Nelson Street. It is a
destination, not a route. Traffic using it cannot make progress since it
feeds back into one-way streets and dual-carriageways with limited
turns. MC's not knowing that led him into the fabrication of his story.

On 17:05 20 May 2020, JNugent said:

On 20/05/2020 11:21, Pamela wrote:
On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a
car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about
cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong
with their behaviour.


When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord
Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the
footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just
trying to keep the traffic flowing.

You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim
about "attempted murder". A police report would do.

I know Lord Nelson Street *very* well. I have known it all my life,
because my family (both sides) have residential and other roots in the
area dating from before WW2 right up until the 1970s.

There is no appreciable traffic in Lord Nelson Street. It is a
destination, not a route. Traffic using it cannot make progress since it
feeds back into one-way streets and dual-carriageways with limited
turns. MC's not knowing that led him into the fabrication of his story.

It sounds like Mike Collins is exaggerating again. This group has more
than a few fantasists, with Simon being the fantasist-in-chief.