On 26/05/2020 11:15, Pamela wrote:
On 08:34 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:
ÂÂ*
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.