|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
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? Well, you always claim to know what a person is thinking and write your your version. This one should be easy. ... 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. No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by? ... 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. Eh? 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). Eh? Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver? You're even more doolally than usual. The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out the same offence. Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both occasions (separated by a few seconds). Whichever rules...? Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always negated when a lesser rule is broken. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 09/12/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:23:23 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 18:20, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:14:55 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 17:58, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:20:46 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 17:02, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:34:52 PM UTC, 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? Or was that Totally Different [TM]? Do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Whichever it was, I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way. Wouldn't you? Condoning or condemning the drivers actions are the only options available to you. Which is it? I haven't got all the evidence. Have you? I repeat, though: I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way. But you wouldn't, would you? Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? It is a simple question and all necessary evidence is in the video. What is the evidence? Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? On what evidence? The evidence in the video. Obviously, you will condemn anyone on no evidence at all, but most of us are not prepared to do that. Now, once again, do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Those are the only options available to you. Providing you leave the goalposts where they are that is. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 10/12/2019 17:50, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 1:41:11 AM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:23:23 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 18:20, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 6:14:55 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 17:58, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:20:46 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 09/12/2019 17:02, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:34:52 PM UTC, 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? Or was that Totally Different [TM]? Do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Whichever it was, I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way. Wouldn't you? Condoning or condemning the drivers actions are the only options available to you. Which is it? I haven't got all the evidence. Have you? I repeat, though: I would treat the cyclist and the driver in the same way. But you wouldn't, would you? Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? It is a simple question and all necessary evidence is in the video. What is the evidence? Once again do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? On what evidence? The evidence in the video. Even according to the loony who posted the video, that is not all the evidence accepted as true by the court... is it? Obviously, you will condemn anyone on no evidence at all, but most of us are not prepared to do that. Now, once again, do you condone or condemn the drivers actions? Those are the only options available to you. Providing you leave the goalposts where they are that is. Let's have ALL the evidence here, out in the open. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: 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? Well, you always claim to know what a person is thinking and write your your version. This one should be easy. ... 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. No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by? ... 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. Eh? Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video. 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). Eh? Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video. Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver? You're even more doolally than usual. Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video. The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out the same offence. Whichever rules were being broken, they were being broken on both occasions (separated by a few seconds). Whichever rules...? Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it? Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always negated when a lesser rule is broken. TRANSLATION: Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot injure anyone. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote: On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss ... 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. No response. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by? Fool or hypocrite? Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver? You're even more doolally than usual. Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video. Very well. I hadn't watched beyond the 30 seconds covering the driver's dangerous manouevre round the island. So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been committed by this imaginary cyclist? The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out the same offence. ... Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. No quote? How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it? If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving without due care? That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence. Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always negated when a lesser rule is broken. TRANSLATION: Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot injure anyone. Translation: Cyclists are good targets for being made into scapegoats. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote: On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss ... 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. No response. It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation by an oaf. Then it's easy to assume that you are either a fool or a hypocrite. Which do you prefer to be known by? So was that. Fool or hypocrite? Yes, on reflection, one of those probably fits you slightly better than "oaf". Ther's not much in it though. Are you going to condemn the cyclist who tried to rob the driver? You're even more doolally than usual. Go back and read (if you can) the captions within the video. Very well. I hadn't watched beyond the 30 seconds covering the driver's dangerous manouevre round the island. But you have now, and you now know that the attempted robbery by a cyclist has been accepted as factual by the court. And yet there you were ranting on about the driver when you didn't even know about that, even though the evidence was there, as available to you as to anyone else. So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been committed by this imaginary cyclist? What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. The discussion about a video showing a driver performing a manouevre when it wasn't safe to do so and your claim that a cyclist carried out the same offence. ... Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. No quote? You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike. As had already been remarked: How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it? If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving without due care? Are you sure you are quite sane? You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the law. That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence. Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs. Though in a small way you are right. Using the roads responsibly and safely is the rule that overrides everything. Safety is not always negated when a lesser rule is broken. TRANSLATION: Cyclists can do as they like because I say they cannot injure anyone. Translation: Cyclists are good targets for being made into scapegoats. Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote: On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss ... 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. No response. It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation by an oaf. In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? ... So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been committed by this imaginary cyclist? What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving. ... Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. No quote? You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike. The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly imaginary) failed thief. ... As had already been remarked: How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it? If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving without due care? Are you sure you are quite sane? You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the law. Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist. The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care. That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence. Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs. The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing to comply with traffic signs. ... Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote: On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote: On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss ... 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. No response. It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation by an oaf. In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience. You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications for other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since none of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a criminal offence, however egregious. That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as stupid as that - are you? ... So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been committed by this imaginary cyclist? What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving. This case demonstrates otherwise. ... Your view, repeated here over and over again, is that no rules apply to cyclists. If you're right, then you must have a quote you can paste to show this. No quote? You have done it in this very thread, condemning the car driver for the very same offence we had already seen a cyclist commit. You have made and brooked no criticim of the chav on the bike. The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly imaginary) failed thief. I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I was talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording - who committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism whatsoever whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike or from you. I hope that's clearer. ... As had already been remarked: How about the fact they you fail to condemn the actions of a cyclist who is clearly seen to cycle to the wrong (ie, illegal) side of a traffic island with a "Keep left" sign on it? If it is illegal how come the driver was done in court for driving without due care? Are you sure you are quite sane? You are asking why a driver was prosecuted because a cyclist broke the law. Now I know what you are referring to, you are still doolally. You're completely obsessed about an imaginary cyclist. You were talking (just above at least) about the cyclist who failed to comply with the signage (the same thing the car-driver did). Neither that visible chav on a bike nor the robber on a bike are imaginary. We have the report to tell us that. The driver was in court about a driving offence - driving without due care. That is not an automatic charge for failing to comply with a mandatory sign. There is a perfectly adequate offence of failing to comply with a mandatory sign - and that is the same offence as a cyclist can clearly be seen committing early in the video (though that chav gets no criticism from the camera-equipped loony, for some reason). That is much harder to determine than the breaking of a binary offence. The cyclist (the non-imaginary one that caught your attention) quite clearly did not commit the same offence. Exactly the same offence: failing to comply with traffic signs. The driver was charged with driving without due care, not about failing to comply with traffic signs. How do you know that? How do you know he wasn't charged with both? And come to that, are you insisting that failing to comply with mandatory signage isn't an offence (as visibly committed by that chav on a bike)? ... Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part. Why can't you? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.
On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote: On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote: On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss ... 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. No response. It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an ejaculation by an oaf. In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience. Ah, we're slowly getting there. You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications for other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since none of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a criminal offence, however egregious. I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the sort of criminal offence you're talking about. That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as stupid as that - are you? The stupidity is amongst those who try to connect the crime to the criminal's choice of transport. ... So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have been committed by this imaginary cyclist? What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter, attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968. Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving. This case demonstrates otherwise. The two ARE completely different. The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a (possibly imaginary) failed thief. I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I was talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording - who committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism whatsoever whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike or from you. Sigh. I hope that's clearer. You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material factor. Completely ignoring the effect on other road users, timing and road layout. And that the driver was charged with driving without due care, not for a rule (that you can't identify) that prohibits driving the wrong side of an island. I hope that's clearer. ... Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it doesn't. Do you claim to be squeaky clean? If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part. Why can't you? You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence, you include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a factor. Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav and another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony. You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling". You have the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act is being condoned. Why should anybody take your version of "advice". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Only in America: Cyclists are never at fault are they? | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 15 | June 22nd 12 07:48 PM |
Its the motorists fault when cyclists race on the road | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 12 | March 3rd 12 07:56 PM |
A report showing that 76 per cent of accidents are the cyclists fault, good case for training | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 17 | October 22nd 11 11:57 AM |
It was the cyclists' fault | Justin[_3_] | UK | 1 | December 9th 10 08:11 PM |
Mummy, what is it??? | saam | Unicycling | 27 | August 2nd 06 06:00 PM |