On 01/12/2019 17:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/12/2019 15:58, JNugent wrote:
On 01/12/2019 14:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/12/2019 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 30/11/2019 23:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/11/2019 18:53, MrCheerful wrote:
On 30/11/2019 14:44, colwyn wrote:
On 30/11/2019 14:04, JNugent wrote:

And this was one of a relatively few posts in uk.r.c to be
on-topic?

Oh yes, just tinged with gloating, glee and schadenfreude. Shame
on you!

If enough cyclists get the message then the number of deaths may
decrease.

The message? How about people that know nothing about riding a bike
stop jumping to conclusions and mind their own business?

Is "Watch where you're going" jumping to conclusions?

I think it is reasonable to assume that not looking was a factor.
Pronouncing the cause of not looking is jumping to conclusions.

You are surely being a bit hasty in claiming it must have been suicide.

Eh?

OK, I will remind you (on this occasion) of what you said.

You said: "Pronouncing the cause of not looking is jumping to conclusions".

But there are only two possibilities, one of which is that the collision
was not intended and was caused by the rider not watching where he was
going. The other possibility (if it can be put as highly as that) is
that he was watching where he was going and deliberately collided with
the car parked in the parking bay.

By discounting the first possibility (the only realistic one), you are
insisting on the second one. There is nothing in-between. And only the
first one (inadvertence) makes sense in the circumstances.

As I said:

No, the only reasonable conclusion is that the collision was not
intended and that it happened because the cyclist wasn't looking where
he was going.

You should make an effort to read and comprehend what others write.

The fault here is in what you wrote. Whatever you thought it meant, it
meant something else. I responded to what you wrote and to its meaning,
not to something still lurking in the recesses of your imagination.

It isn't as though it's the only example we've ever seen, is it?

It happens. Fortunately not as much as your inability to read.

....says the poster who has evident difficulty in expressing what he
means, and still hasn't said what he means, beyond saying it wasn't what
he wrote.

Besides, the message "look where you're going" is stating the
bleedin' obvious, unnecessary and patronising.

It is obvious. I agree.

It is not unnecessary -

Wrong. Patronising stuff snipped.

Oh dear...

As I said a few days ago, for some cyclists, the truth is something they
cannot bear and will not tolerate.

For all that, they should still watch where they are going when out in
the real world. Even though they (some of them) cannot bear to be
reminded of that.