Decked with a single blow

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...

....and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are green
or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't impede him by
selfishly walking along the footway.


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

On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are green
or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't impede him by
selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something that
has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not something
you know anything about.

On 22/09/2019 14:23, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are
green or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't impede
him by selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something that
has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not something
you know anything about.

You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and you are trying).

You also have to look out for yourself when travelling by any other mode
- particularly when driving. Just think of the consequences of not
keeping a proper lookout.

Please explain, BTW, why anyone should have to "look out for one's self"
(or even oneself) in respect of cyclists when (a) walking along a
footway or (b) crossing a Pelicon where the lights are green for
pedestrians and red for carriageway traffic, including bicycles.

In your own words...


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

On 22/09/2019 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:23, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are
green or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't
impede him by selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something
that has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not
something you know anything about.

You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and you are trying).

Wrong about which aspect?

You also have to look out for yourself when travelling by any other
mode - particularly when driving. Just think of the consequences of
not keeping a proper lookout.

When driving, I only have to be concerned about not harming a
pedestrian. I don't have to worry about being harmed by a pedestrian.

Please explain, BTW, why anyone should have to "look out for one's
self" (or even oneself) in respect of cyclists when (a) walking along
a footway or (b) crossing a Pelicon where the lights are green for
pedestrians and red for carriageway traffic, including bicycles.

In your own words...

The matter under discussion happens to be about someone crossing a
road without pedestrian lights. Don't move the goalposts.

On 22/09/2019 17:06, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/09/2019 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are
Â*green or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't
impede him by selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something
that has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not
something you know anything about.

You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and you are trying).

Wrong about which aspect?

Watch the video.

You also have to look out for yourself when travelling by any other
mode - particularly when driving. Just think of the consequences of
not keeping a proper lookout.

When driving, I only have to be concerned about not harming a
pedestrian. I don't have to worry about being harmed by a pedestrian.

Please explain, BTW, why anyone should have to "look out for one's
self" (or even oneself) in respect of cyclists when (a) walking along
a footway or (b) crossing a Pelicon where the lights are green for
pedestrians and red for carriageway traffic, including bicycles.

In your own words...

The matter under discussion happens to be about someone crossing a
road without pedestrian lights. Don't move the goalposts.

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


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

On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 17:06, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/09/2019 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are
Â*green or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't
impede him by selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something
that has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not
something you know anything about.

You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and you are trying).

Wrong about which aspect?

Watch the video.

Not relevant. Looking out for one's self has to be all the time.

You also have to look out for yourself when travelling by any other
mode - particularly when driving. Just think of the consequences of
not keeping a proper lookout.

When driving, I only have to be concerned about not harming a
pedestrian. I don't have to worry about being harmed by a pedestrian.

Please explain, BTW, why anyone should have to "look out for one's
self" (or even oneself) in respect of cyclists when (a) walking along
a footway or (b) crossing a Pelicon where the lights are green for
pedestrians and red for carriageway traffic, including bicycles.

In your own words...

The matter under discussion happens to be about someone crossing a
road without pedestrian lights. Don't move the goalposts.

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?

On 23/09/2019 11:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/09/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 17:06, TMS320 wrote:

On 22/09/2019 14:38, JNugent wrote:
On 22/09/2019 14:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/09/2019 13:49, JNugent 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...

...and cede all rights of way to cyclists, whether the lights are
Â*green or red for you or for him. And then make sure you don't
impede him by selfishly walking along the footway.

When walking or cycling, looking out for one's self is something
that has to be done the whole time when motorists are about. Not
something you know anything about.

You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried (and you are trying).

Wrong about which aspect?

Watch the video.

Not relevant. Looking out for one's self has to be all the time.

You need to watch the video. It does not show the cyclist in a good
light at all and shows that the pedestrian victim was entirely in the right.

But you don't want to know that, of course.

You also have to look out for yourself when travelling by any other
mode - particularly when driving. Just think of the consequences of
not keeping a proper lookout.

When driving, I only have to be concerned about not harming a
pedestrian. I don't have to worry about being harmed by a pedestrian.

Please explain, BTW, why anyone should have to "look out for one's
self" (or even oneself) in respect of cyclists when (a) walking along
a footway or (b) crossing a Pelicon where the lights are green for
pedestrians and red for carriageway traffic, including bicycles.

In your own words...

The matter under discussion happens to be about someone crossing a
road without pedestrian lights. Don't move the goalposts.

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.

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.

Don't just waffle. Watch it.

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

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.

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.

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

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