Dropped bars, TDF wannabee kills himself by riding into a parked car.

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?

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.

Besides, the message "look where you're going" is stating the bleedin'
obvious, unnecessary and patronising. Everybody gets distracted for some
reason at some point. Fortunately, most of the time it doesn't coincide
with something that needs immediate attention.

On Sunday, December 1, 2019 at 2:53:57 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

Everybody gets distracted for some
reason at some point. Fortunately, most of the time it doesn't coincide
with something that needs immediate attention.

Sadly, not in this case.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...-taken-3597616

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.

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

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 - and very clearly not that. In fact, it is the
opposite. It is very necessary to remind cyclists - some of 'em - to
watch where they're going.

Is it necessary to remind you that had that poor man been in a modern
car (even a quite small one) and wearing a seat belt, he would almost
certainly have survived a shunt like that? Is it necessary to remark on
the vulnerability of cyclists and motor-cyclists and of how looking
where they are going is an obvious imperative?

Everybody gets distracted for some reason at some point.

True, but not A Good Thing, as I am sure you will agree.

Fortunately, most of the time it doesn't coincide
with something that needs immediate attention.

Probably true, but not a matter which is within the control of the
distractee. It's better not to rely on good luck (or "fortune").

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 01/12/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:
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".

I did.

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 means exactly as written. The imagination is all yours.

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

If you want to give advice then give it to drivers. It might help reduce
the 100 drivers a day that run into pedestrians (what was it you said
about truth hurting?). But I suspect drivers would also put up two
fingers in front of your face.

On 01/12/2019 18:19, TMS320 wrote:

On 01/12/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:
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".

I did.

And that means that you prefer the only alternative, that it was not
caused by failing to watch where he was going (sorry for the
double-negative, but it was not inadvertent). The sole implication of
that is that you believe he did it deliberately and so must have been
watching where he was going. I reject that - I say it was an accident,
caused simply by not looking where he was going.

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 means exactly as written.

Then it means what I said. There can only be one of two meanings, and
you have rejected the "not watching out" one.

The imagination is all yours.

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

If you want to give advice then give it to drivers. It might help reduce
the 100 drivers a day that run into pedestrians (what was it you said
about truth hurting?). But I suspect drivers would also put up two
fingers in front of your face.

Look up there, higher up the screen...

Yes... almost at the very top... what does it say?

That's right... *uk.rec.cycling*

This is not the place to give advice to drivers.

But look... no-one wants to see you - or anyone else - injured or worse.
So watch where you're going, eh? Look well ahead, and not at the road
just under your dropped handlebars.

On 01/12/2019 20:58, JNugent wrote:
On 01/12/2019 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/12/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:

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

I did.

And that means that you prefer the only alternative,

And it means you still fail to understand the difference between "cause
of not looking" and "not looking was the cause". Perhaps your first
language isn't concerned about word order.

Yes... almost at the very top... what does it say?

That's right... *uk.rec.cycling*

This is not the place to give advice to drivers.

Yes, and the casualties, mistakes and law breaking by drivers means it
is no place for drivers to give "advice" to cyclists.

But look... no-one wants to see you - or anyone else - injured or
worse. So watch where you're going, eh? Look well ahead,

I shall continue to look at whatever I want.

and not at the road just under your dropped handlebars.

Oh look, Nugent has just jumped to an uninformed conclusion.

If you post again it will get an uncivil reply. You have been warned.

On 02/12/2019 10:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/12/2019 20:58, JNugent wrote:
On 01/12/2019 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 01/12/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:

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

I did.

And that means that you prefer the only alternative,

And it means you still fail to understand the difference between "cause
of not looking" and "not looking was the cause". Perhaps your first
language isn't concerned about word order.

Perhaps you are not concerned about logic in language. Or perhaps
there's no "perhaps" about it.

Yes... almost at the very top... what does it say?
That's right... *uk.rec.cycling*
This is not the place to give advice to drivers.

Yes, and the casualties, mistakes and law breaking by drivers means it
is no place for drivers to give "advice" to cyclists.

On what basis do you "conclude" that?

Certainly on no logical basis. Unless, of course, it's in the uk.r.c
charter. Is it?

But look... no-one wants to see you - or anyone else - injured or
worse. So watch where you're going, eh? Look well ahead,

I shall continue to look at whatever I want.

I thought you would probably reject sensible safety advice (some things
don't change). But it was worth offering it just the same. It's a shame
that you are so ungracious, isn't it?

and not at the road just under your dropped handlebars.

Oh look, Nugent has just jumped to an uninformed conclusion.

Not a conclusion, but a considered possibility. If you are one of those
cyclists who always look ahead and proceed in the utmost available
safety (for yourself and others), then bully for you and it won't apply
to you. But there are a lot who don't.

If you post again it will get an uncivil reply. You have been warned.

Gerraway! TMS320 being "uncivil"?