Decked with a single blow

On 23/09/2019 15:41, soup wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/09/2019 13:28, soup wrote:
On 13/09/2019 09:43, TMS320 wrote:

doesn't remove the need to pay attention.

Mmm now lets see there is a red for all wheeled traffic so I will
cross , bicycle cycles through the red light and 'catches' the guy's
coat how much more attention do you have to give?

Just take one less step forward.

...or,Â* wild idea here,Â* how about cyclists don't go through red lights.

Heretic!


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:

You haven't watched the video (at the link posted by Mason), have you?

It appears that you haven't. Where are the pedestrian lights?

If you'd watched the video, you'd know.

I have and I know. I'm asking you to point them out.

Go on... treat yourself to a bit of Mason's favourite criminal violence
("decking with a single blow") ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html

Then say (in your opinion) which cyclist was the criminal and which
pedestrian was the victim.

In English please.

The incident on the road and the assault are different events. Any
sensible person would realise that.

Don't just waffle.

Using 30 words when 3 would do is your forte.

Watch it.
Shrug.

On 23/09/2019 16:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:

You haven't watched the video (at the link posted by Mason), have you?

It appears that you haven't. Where are the pedestrian lights?

If you'd watched the video, you'd know.

I have and I know. I'm asking you to point them out.

Go on... treat yourself to a bit of Mason's favourite criminal
violence ("decking with a single blow") ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html

Then say (in your opinion) which cyclist was the criminal and which
pedestrian was the victim.

In English please.

I didn't want you leave you any playground wriggle-room.

The incident on the road and the assault are different events. Any
sensible person would realise that.

I agree they are separate events ("different" isn't the correct word;
they are similar in that they are breaches of the law).

So what?

The cyclist committed a crime and the pedestrian was the innocent
victim. Has anyone sensible said anything else?

As well as the crime, the cyclist committed a traffic offence. Thank you
for emphasising his patent disregard for the law in general. But then,
he *is* a cyclist...

Don't just waffle.

Using 30 words when 3 would do is your forte.

Watch it.

Shrug.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 16:20, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:

You haven't watched the video (at the link posted by Mason), have you?

It appears that you haven't. Where are the pedestrian lights?

If you'd watched the video, you'd know.

I have and I know. I'm asking you to point them out.

Oh, you can't.

Go on... treat yourself to a bit of Mason's favourite criminal
violence ("decking with a single blow") ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html

Then say (in your opinion) which cyclist was the criminal and which
pedestrian was the victim.

In English please.

I didn't want you leave you any playground wriggle-room.

The incident on the road and the assault are different events. Any
sensible person would realise that.

I agree they are separate events ("different" isn't the correct word;
they are similar in that they are breaches of the law).

They may be connected but are different. "Similar" is not correct.

The cyclist committed a crime and the pedestrian was the innocent
victim. Has anyone sensible said anything else?

As well as the crime, the cyclist committed a traffic offence. Thank you
for emphasising his patent disregard for the law in general. But then,
he *is* a cyclist...

If you watch carefully, not only would you not be able to find any
pedestrian lights but the assault was carried out by a person that
happened to be walking.

On 23/09/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:20, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:08, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 13:07, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:

You haven't watched the video (at the link posted by Mason), have
you?

It appears that you haven't. Where are the pedestrian lights?

If you'd watched the video, you'd know.

I have and I know. I'm asking you to point them out.

Oh, you can't.

Go on... treat yourself to a bit of Mason's favourite criminal
violence ("decking with a single blow") ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7447037/Hunt-head-butting-cyclist-ran-red-light-clipped-pedestrian.html

Then say (in your opinion) which cyclist was the criminal and which
pedestrian was the victim.

In English please.

I didn't want you leave you any playground wriggle-room.

The incident on the road and the assault are different events. Any
sensible person would realise that.

I agree they are separate events ("different" isn't the correct word;
they are similar in that they are breaches of the law).

They may be connected but are different. "Similar" is not correct.

The cyclist committed a crime and the pedestrian was the innocent
victim. Has anyone sensible said anything else?

As well as the crime, the cyclist committed a traffic offence. Thank
you for emphasising his patent disregard for the law in general. But
then, he *is* a cyclist...

If you watch carefully, not only would you not be able to find any
pedestrian lights but the assault was carried out by a person that
happened to be walking.

What do you say the traffic lights at that exact location are for, other
than to allow pedestrians to cross the road in safety? Are cyclists
allowed to ignore red traffic lights at that or any other set of signals?

A simple "yes" or "No" would be ideal in response that that second part.

Yes, the criminal cyclist dismounted from his steed and was on his feet
when he committed the crime of assault. So what?


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 15:41, soup wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/09/2019 13:28, soup wrote:
On 13/09/2019 09:43, TMS320 wrote:

doesn't remove the need to pay attention.

Mmm now lets see there is a red for all wheeled traffic so I will
cross , bicycle cycles through the red light and 'catches' the guy's
coat how much more attention do you have to give?

Just take one less step forward.

...or,Â* wild idea here, how about cyclists don't go through red lights.

On the bike I have far more occasions of encountering pedestrians in the
wrong place than I have when I am a pedestrian and encountering cyclists
in the wrong place.

As a pedestrian I know that motor vehicles are the greatest threat. It
is remarkable how people will scurry away from a motor vehicle without
further thought but wander casually in front of a cyclist and expect the
cyclist to do something about it.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:56:42 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 23/09/2019 14:26, Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 10:44:27 AM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:

I never said that there are "SO" many thugs on bikes in this area.
I have one hand holding the dog, this gives me one hand left to
defend myself against footpath riding scum who always back down into
the gutter - where they belong.
It's called sauce for the goose.

It's called living in a chav scum area.

An area where there are many cyclists is defined as a chav scum area?

I hadn't thought of it in that way, but I'm prepared to defer to you
on it.

After all, you ought to know.

Even chavs can afford a viable form of transport aka. bicycle; however
many prefer to waste their (or someone elses) money on souping up their
Ford Escorts (other ****e cars are available). Then drive them in a
manner designed to maim or kill themselves and/or innocent pedestrians
and cyclists.

Please don't side with the chavs. Oh, you're a petrolhead.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 23/09/2019 17:15, TMS320 wrote:

On 23/09/2019 15:41, soup wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/09/2019 13:28, soup wrote:

Mmm now lets see there is a red for all wheeled traffic so I will
cross , bicycle cycles through the red light and 'catches' the guy's
coat how much more attention do you have to give?

Just take one less step forward.

...or,Â* wild idea here, how about cyclists don't go through red lights.

On the bike I have far more occasions of encountering pedestrians in the
wrong place than I have when I am a pedestrian and encountering cyclists
in the wrong place.

So what?

In what way does that address the issue of cyclists disobeying traffic law?

You know full well that there is no USA-style "jaywalking" law in the
UK. Pedestrians (that's all of us) are free, however ill-advisedly, to
cross an all-purpose carriageway wherever we like.

As a pedestrian I know that motor vehicles are the greatest threat. It
is remarkable how people will scurry away from a motor vehicle without
further thought but wander casually in front of a cyclist and expect the
cyclist to do something about it.

Does that mean that cyclists are allowed to pass through red traffic lights?

Does *anything* mean that cyclists are allowed to pass through red
traffic lights?

Give over with the attempted diversion.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 17:34, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:56:42 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 23/09/2019 14:26, Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 10:44:27 AM UTC+1, Mr Pounder
Esquire wrote:

I never said that there are "SO" many thugs on bikes in this area.
I have one hand holding the dog, this gives me one hand left to
defend myself against footpath riding scum who always back down into
the gutter - where they belong.
It's called sauce for the goose.

It's called living in a chav scum area.

An area where there are many cyclists is defined as a chav scum area?

I hadn't thought of it in that way, but I'm prepared to defer to you
on it.

After all, you ought to know.

Even chavs can afford a viable form of transport aka. bicycle; however
many prefer to waste their (or someone elses) money on souping up their
Ford Escorts (other ****e cars are available). Then drive them in a
manner designed to maim or kill themselves and/or innocent pedestrians
and cyclists.

Not according to Mason.

You aren't paying enough attention.

Please don't side with the chavs.

I try not to.

Oh, you're a petrolhead.

Really?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 23/09/2019 16:43, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:

If you watch carefully, not only would you not be able to find any
pedestrian lights but the assault was carried out by a person that
happened to be walking.

What do you say the traffic lights at that exact location are for,
other than to allow pedestrians to cross the road in safety? Are
cyclists allowed to ignore red traffic lights at that or any other
set of signals?

It's taken several posts to put the issue of pedestrian lights to bed.
Do not move the goalposts.

A simple "yes" or "No" would be ideal in response that that second
part.

It is not a simple yes or no. Using the roads always requires ca
being dead but right doesn't work.

Yes, the criminal cyclist dismounted from his steed and was on his
feet when he committed the crime of assault. So what?

When the offender appears in court on a charge of assault will the court
treat him differently to any other common criminal?