But Mummy it was the cyclists fault.

On 13/12/2019 11:39, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 20:52, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 19:32, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/12/2019 17:01, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2019 00:48, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2019 13:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/12/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfNVCw431Ss



...
It would be interesting to know whether you really are
the stickler you claim to be. Given the maxim "rules
are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of
fools", one has wonder where you think you place
yourself.

No response.

It wasn't a question requiring an answer. It was just an
ejaculation by an oaf.

In that case I will ask a direct question. Do you claim to be
squeaky clean?

Alas, I cannot do so in good conscience.

Ah, we're slowly getting there.

You will immediately agree that this does not have any implications
for other people. And indeed, why should it? It would mean that since
none of us are perfect, none of us could ever complain about a
criminal offence, however egregious.

I don't want to be assaulted or have my house burgled, if that's the
sort of criminal offence you're talking about.

But you were heading full pelt towards "Let him among you who is without
sin cast the first stone", which gives carte blanche to criminals.

That can't be what you are trying to get at. Even you aren't as
stupid as that - are you?

The stupidity is amongst those who try to connect the crime to the
criminal's choice of transport.

That connection was made by the criminal who tried to rob a member of
the public.

Do you believe that the victim should have lied about the robber's
choice of transport?

...

So what offence defined by road traffic acts is alleged to have
been committed by this imaginary cyclist?

What are you talking about? Robbery (and for that matter,
attempted robbery) is an offence under the Theft Act 1968.

Only traffic acts are relevant to cycling and driving.

This case demonstrates otherwise.

The two ARE completely different.

The best you can manage is that I have nothing to say about a
(possibly imaginary) failed thief.

I wasn't talking (just there) of the robber on a bike. There are at
least three bike-riders connected with or appearing in the video. I
was talking about the chav on a bike - clearly seen in the recording
- who committed the same offence as the car-driver, to no criticism
whatsoever whether from the camera-equipped loony on the other bike
or from you.

Sigh.

I hope that's clearer.

You're just claiming that going round the island was the only material
factor.

That *is* an offence. I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald
tyre, it is an absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Completely ignoring the effect on other road users, timing and road
layout. And that the driver was charged with driving without due care,
not for a rule (that you can't identify) that prohibits driving the
wrong side of an island.

I hope that's clearer.

...
Don't break the law. It applies even to you, even you "think" it
Â*doesn't.

Do you claim to be squeaky clean?

If someone were to advise me not to break the law and to proceed
safely and lawfully, I would take it in good part.

Why can't you?

You make too many assumptions; you twist anything written down; you
don't advise, you patronise and make demands. In the above sentence, you
include the word 'safely': when in fact, you never accept it as a factor.

Obey the law and you'll be 90% of the way there.

Also above, you called a cyclist that was proceeding safely a chav

Do you mean the chav on a bike who decided that the law didn't apply to
him or the camera-equipped loony on the other bike who decided not to
confront him about the offence?

and
another one, put in clear danger by a driver, a loony.

He's a loony. One day, he'll confront the wrong fellow citizen and end
up with "cuts and bruises". My well-meant advice to him would be that he
should stop trying to impersonate a police officer and stop being so
confrontational.

You constantly demand that "cyclists" should condemn a "cyclist" over
ordinary criminal behaviour that is irrelevant to "cycling".

Actually, I don't, so perhaps you'd like to take that back.

Sometimes, I make postings in threads initiated by others, but usually
only in response to non-sequiturs posted by other respondents.

yes... get over to Google and start looking at the Deja archive... you
know you want to...

You have
the attitude that if there is no condemnation for an act, then the act
is being condoned.

Condeming citizen A for an observed and alleged offence whilst
studiously ignoring citizen B for the same observed and alleged offence
is hypocrisy. You know that already.

Why should anybody take your version of "advice".

Because it is good, impartial, advice given with the best of intentions.
We all have a duty to proceed as lawfully and as safely as possible.
Even you.

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!
or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 11:04:03 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!
or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

Cycle tyres can be totally free of tread - my old TT bike had smooth tubeless tyres.

See:
https://www.wigglestatic.com/product...000&h=2000&a=7

On 14/12/2019 11:17, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 11:04:03 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!
or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

Cycle tyres can be totally free of tread - my old TT bike had smooth tubeless tyres.

See:
https://www.wigglestatic.com/product...000&h=2000&a=7

I know, but JNugent is laying down the law and I am waiting for his
legal advice!

On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:
On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:
I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!
or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.



Ignoring a traffic sign is an absolute offence, as is driving a car on a
bald tyre. It was just a badly laid out sentence, taken out of context
with snipping, its meaning is lost.

On 14/12/2019 11:22, colwyn wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:17, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 11:04:03 AM UTC, colwyn wrote:
Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!
or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

Cycle tyres can be totally free of tread - my old TT bike had smooth
tubeless tyres.

See:
https://www.wigglestatic.com/product...000&h=2000&a=7


I know, but JNugent is laying down the law and I am waiting for his
legal advice!

You should be able to comprehend the meaning when taken in context.

On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.


[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 7:55:39 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 18:53, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, December 14, 2019 at 12:14:05 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 14/12/2019 11:04, colwyn wrote:

On 13/12/2019 14:07, JNugent wrote:

I am fairly certain that like driving with a bald tyre, it is an
absolute offence. For drivers *and* for cyclists.

Please explain, since when is riding your push bike with bald tyres an
offence!

I didn't say it was.

But you are 'fairly certain' it is.

Another one deliberately misunderstands plain English (or is fooled by
colwyn's snipping).

Yet you are 'fairly certain' cycling with a bald tyre is illegal.
Do you actually know what tyre tread is for?


[Here's a clue: imagine the bit you quoted in its proper context,
complete with thr rest of it which you conveninetly snipped; now... what
does "it" refer to?]

or the difference between slick or bald bicycle tyres and I don't mean
damaged to the canvass.

You're asking a question whose answer (whatever it might be) is
something about which I could not possibly care less, I'm afraid.

Is that because you are in international airspace on you goalposts?

Like driving (got that? *driving*) with a bald tyre, failing to comply
with traffic signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is
an absolute offence.

And that is also the case for cyclists: failure to comply with traffic
signage (including traffic lights and Keep Left signs) is an absolute
offence, though trying to convince a cyclist of that is hardly an easy task.

Does that include speed limit signs given speed limits do not apply to cyclists?