Police to investigate driver overtaking cyclist on double lines

On 19/06/2020 14:51, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 13:22, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

You insist on refusing to see that *safety* is of paramount concern;

That is a blatant lie.

True. You're quite happy to put others in danger when you use the
convenience of your car

the
reason we have laws (apart from tax-gathering) is to regulate safety.

Quite so. And no-one is safe unless the law is complied with.

Nonsense.

Obeying the rules is never a guarantee of safety. Breaking the rules is
not necessarily unsafe.

Breaking the rules when it is unsafe is ....err unsafe.

That does not mean that a cyclist (or anyone else) has the right to make
decisions on the spot, based on some sort of super-legal power, to
disapply laws when they are inconvenient, using the excuse (and it IS
just an excuse) that they judge it safer to commit an offence.

The old ones are always the best. It's not for you to decide; if it's
not safe, the evidence would be your dead body.
(Paths of Glory - Stanley Kubrick)

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:38:49 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/06/2020 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 03:31, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 00:29, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

I don't make the rules.

Unless you see it as being to your advantage, you don't obey them
either, do you?

Do you have evidence?

I mean evidence, not wishful thinking or bullish assertion.

Your own admissions should suffice.

How about this from you on 20th May last?

QUOTE:
Except [JN] refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and
danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the
road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done
unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in
full knowledge.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of
mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the
former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.
ENDQUOTE

Go on... try to pretend you were not saying that cyclists (and in
particular, you) don't have to obey the law.

Apparently it's OK for a cyclist to totally ignore the law as long as
he/she "has options", whereas "options" for other road-users don't
matter as far as you are concerned.

A road here has just been made one way. But with a huge (car sized) arrow with a little bicycle next to it, pointing the other way, encouraging them to go the wrong way.

Firstly, since the road has been made narrow by parking places, this means cars will be driving directly towards an oncoming bicycle. How the **** is that a good idea?

Secondly, someone is going to see that arrow and not the bicycle drawing, and drive the wrong way.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:51:15 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/06/2020 13:22, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 11:38:49 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/06/2020 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 03:31, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 00:29, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

I don't make the rules.

Unless you see it as being to your advantage, you don't obey them
either, do you?

Do you have evidence?

I mean evidence, not wishful thinking or bullish assertion.

Your own admissions should suffice.

How about this from you on 20th May last?

QUOTE:
Except [JN] refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and
danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the
capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the
road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done
unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in
full knowledge.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of
mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the
former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.
ENDQUOTE

Go on... try to pretend you were not saying that cyclists (and in
particular, you) don't have to obey the law.

Apparently it's OK for a cyclist to totally ignore the law as long as
he/she "has options", whereas "options" for other road-users don't
matter as far as you are concerned.


You insist on refusing to see that *safety* is of paramount concern;

That is a blatant lie.

the
reason we have laws (apart from tax-gathering) is to regulate safety.

Quite so. And no-one is safe unless the law is complied with.

That does not mean that a cyclist (or anyone else) has the right to make
decisions on the spot, based on some sort of super-legal power, to
disapply laws when they are inconvenient, using the excuse (and it IS
just an excuse) that they judge it safer to commit an offence.

Why do you refuse to see that a bicycle is smaller so doesn't cause the same problems when running a red light etc?

And until they have reg numbers on bikes, I will break all traffic laws when riding one.

The above statement is silly really, as I do the same in a car.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:52:59 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/06/2020 13:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 12:38, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 03:31, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 00:29, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

I don't make the rules.

Unless you see it as being to your advantage, you don't obey them
either, do you?

Do you have evidence?

I mean evidence, not wishful thinking or bullish assertion.

Your own admissions should suffice.

How about this from you on 20th May last?

QUOTE:
Except [JN] refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and
danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also
the capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the
road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done
unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in
full knowledge.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of
mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the
former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.
ENDQUOTE

Go on... try to pretend you were not saying that cyclists (and in
particular, you) don't have to obey the law.

It doesn't say anything about cyclists not having to obey the law.

You don't understand the meaning of the words you yourself use?

So what does "pragmatic" mean?

Apparently it's OK for a cyclist to totally ignore the law as long as
he/she "has options", whereas "options" for other road-users don't
matter as far as you are concerned.

If there were no other road users the boundaries would only be set by
the physical landscape. You're thinking wishfully by trying suggest that
options don't take other road users into account.

It's too late for you to wriggle.

They don't wriggle, they wiggle. That's why they wear those tight shorts and cycle close behind each other.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:55:55 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 19/06/2020 14:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 13:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 12:38, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 08:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/06/2020 03:31, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 00:29, TMS320 wrote:

[ ... ]

I don't make the rules.

Unless you see it as being to your advantage, you don't obey
them either, do you?

Do you have evidence?

I mean evidence, not wishful thinking or bullish assertion.

Your own admissions should suffice.

How about this from you on 20th May last?

QUOTE: Except [JN] refuses to acknowledge differences in
practicality and danger caused. It isn't just the protection of
the cyclist but also the capacity to harm others. To him it is
pure black and white.

Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block
the road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is
done unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it
is done in full knowledge.

Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state
of mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence
than the former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic.
ENDQUOTE

Go on... try to pretend you were not saying that cyclists (and in
particular, you) don't have to obey the law.

It doesn't say anything about cyclists not having to obey the law.

You don't understand the meaning of the words you yourself use?

So what does "pragmatic" mean?

If you don't know, look it up.

Apparently it's OK for a cyclist to totally ignore the law as
long as he/she "has options", whereas "options" for other
road-users don't matter as far as you are concerned.

If there were no other road users the boundaries would only be set
by the physical landscape. You're thinking wishfully by trying
suggest that options don't take other road users into account.

It's too late for you to wriggle.

You won't accept that when you use the convenience of your car, you
create danger for other road users. Your big wish is that a cyclist
taking advantage of a completely empty piece of road is creating more of
a danger than you are.

What about the ones like in the original post who cycle slower than cars on a busy road and cause overtaking to occur? What's that sign I see regularly? "Frustration causes accidents, allow overtaking".

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 00:29:38 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/06/2020 23:17, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:07:55 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/06/2020 22:09, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:29:59 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/06/2020 20:27, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:24:37 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/06/2020 17:26, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:04:08 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 18/06/2020 12:23, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 08:52:00 +0100, TMS320
wrote:
On 17/06/2020 20:11, Commander Kinsey wrote:

What we need is a law like in:

Bosnia and Herzegovina Denmark Italy Malta Netherlands Serbia
Spain Sweden

Dashcams are illegal.

They *are* legal in those countries.

Not what I just read. It would seem nobody knows.

The website I found seemed fairly clear.

So did mine.

This is from a manufacturer:
https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/where...across-europe/


Why would that make it any more accurate?

I expect they don't want customers to sue them.

Information can be out of date. And you could apply your argument to
where I saw it, which I think was the AA or similar.

...you think? Have another look.

At what exactly? I know what I saw.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/08...ing-in-europe/

Whoops! That's the one I read. But I thought it said "totally illegal". Stupid journalism, taking about where it's illegal, and they tell you the ones where it isn't.

https://driveeurope.co.uk/2014/09/24/zeelandbrug/

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/mot...fines-or-jail/

I think that's the
idea, to catch people out and extract money from unsuspecting
tourists.

Yet you complain about being nannied in this country.

What? That's the same thing. In both cases I'm complaining
about too
many petty laws.

No. You're complaining of not being informed about petty laws when
you
are too lazy to find out yourself.

I shouldn't have to. And if they're petty, people don't expect them.

Your problem.

But it shouldn't be. **** me you're slow.

Shrug.

Yes I know, it's not your fault, you can't afford a car.

Still a shrug.

You've forgotten if you have a car?

The cyclist would be arrested.

In some countries, such a Germany, dashcams are legal so long as
material is not available to the public. Austria, Portugal and
Luxembourg are countries with an outright ban on *dashcams*.

How available?

Youtube, etc.

What if someone stole my car?

I expect the answer is - tough.

On who? Are you saying I could be prosecuted for publicising images
when it wasn't me that did it?

Might be. Your guess is as good as mine. Do your own research.

I shouldn't have to. There should be no such law.

Then it would be tough, wouldn't it?.

Are you saying laws are put there to annoy?

Oh look, you've written "are you saying...?" again.

Well if you'd be clear in the first place I wouldn't have to.

You keep asking for clarity on a different subject.

Sorry for confusing your tiny little mind by discussing more than one very precise subject in the same post.

Again, when are you going to get that OCD fixed?

I'm saying that if
your car is stolen and recordings are illegally uploaded it might be
tough if there is any comeback on you. **** me you're slow.

Why on earth would I be responsible for somebody else uploading it?

I don't make the rules.

You sounded like you agreed with them.

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:31:34 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Firstly, since the road has been made narrow by parking places, this means cars will be driving directly towards an oncoming bicycle. How the **** is that a good idea?

The Highway Code advises pedestrians to walk on the RHS of the road into the face of oncoming traffic so they can be seen better. We do it all the time.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:08:00 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:31:34 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Firstly, since the road has been made narrow by parking places, this means cars will be driving directly towards an oncoming bicycle. How the **** is that a good idea?

The Highway Code advises pedestrians to walk on the RHS of the road into the face of oncoming traffic so they can be seen better. We do it all the time.

And when the car comes, we step onto the verge. The cyclist cannot do this since there are parked cars both sides.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 20:08:00 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:31:34 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

Firstly, since the road has been made narrow by parking places, this
means cars will be driving directly towards an oncoming bicycle. How
the **** is that a good idea?

The Highway Code advises pedestrians to walk on the RHS of the road
into the face of oncoming traffic so they can be seen better. We do it
all the time.

PDFTT

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 08:57:34 +0100, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 19:33:38 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 8:11:43 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey
wrote:


Dashcams are illegal. The cyclist would be arrested.

In the UK, after a traffic incident, the police will invariably ask
for people to send in any dashcam footage to assist with the
investigation. Indeed, police forces often have a website where
cyclists and drivers can send in evidence of crimes being committed.


PDFTT.

PGAWKF.