Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:56:09 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:


No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?


That is not relevant to whether the event happened.


It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?

That is not relevant to whether the event happened.

It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be
more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing.

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?

That is not relevant to whether the event happened.

It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be
more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing.

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.


Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

The driver is charged and convicted of both dangerous driving and assault for the subsequent beating
of the fallen cyclist -

and

YOU think the cyclist commited a crime.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:53:45 -0300, Tim McNamara wrote:





The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.


Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

The driver is charged and convicted of both dangerous driving and assault for the subsequent beating
of the fallen cyclist -

and

YOU think the cyclist commited a crime.


Well, the cyclist must have something to provoke the driver.

On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?

That is not relevant to whether the event happened.

It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be
more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing.

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.


Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.

There was no report of a collision.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:25:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?

That is not relevant to whether the event happened.

It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be
more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing.

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.


Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.

There was no report of a collision.



Car overtakes cyclist.

Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand.

Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have
occured?

On 23/07/2014 21:41, Phil W Lee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:25:07 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:53, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:08:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 23/07/2014 19:02, John Kennerson wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the
contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part
of the cyclist.

Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being
charged for a crime?

That is not relevant to whether the event happened.

It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service
(and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous
cyclist-hating whacko on usenet.

You are wrong again. Since it it isn't relevant at all, it cannot be
more or less relevant than any other irrelevant thing.

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

As Lee LJJ. He is always giving his professional advice as to how this
or that person could have been prosecuted. He usually even goes as far
as identifying the area of law under which the prosecution (or, as the
case may be, the civil action) may have been brought - in his opinion.

What is certain is that he would disagree with your thesis that no
prosecution = no offence.


Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.

There was no report of a collision.

Car overtakes cyclist.
Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand.
Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have
occured?

Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for
you to understand?

And why don't you post under your real name instead of someone else's?

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:00:20 +0100, JNugent wrote:




The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.




Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.

There was no report of a collision.

Car overtakes cyclist.
Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand.
Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have
occured?

Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for
you to understand?



"The fact that no collision was reported is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no collision occuring."

On 24/07/2014 02:07, Sig wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The fact that no prosecution takes place is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no offence committed.

Ok, let me get this straight.
There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.
There was no report of a collision.

Car overtakes cyclist.
Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand.
Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have
occured?

Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for
you to understand?

"The fact that no collision was reported is no indication whatsoever of
there having been no collision occuring"...

....is a good example of a non-sequitur.

It seems that you also are having difficulty in understanding
straightforward English.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:00:20 +0100, JNugent wrote:




Ok, let me get this straight.

There's a close overtake by a car-driver, leading to a collision.

Stop there.

There was no report of a collision.

Car overtakes cyclist.
Car mirror contacts cyclist's hand.
Are you saying it is necessary for the car mirror to have struck the bicycle for a collision to have
occured?

Which bit of "There was no report of a collision" is too difficult for
you to understand?



At sea, it is the duty of the over-taking vessel to keep clear ("well clear" is how it is ususally
phrased).

When a collision does occur, it's the over-taking vessel's fault. I don't quite see how the
distinction between hitting a cyclist's body part rather than a part of the bicycle itself makes any
difference.

--
Cheers,

John B.