Police to investigate driver overtaking cyclist on double lines

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:42:57 +0100, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

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

PGAWKF.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 21:42:57 +0100, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

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

Killfile him then you moron.

On 19/06/2020 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
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

Grow up.

That's a wasted wish, but I wish it all the same.

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.

....says he who denies being a serial law-breaker (when he judges it more
convenient - for him).

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

See what I mean?

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)

Whatever.

On 19/06/2020 20:38, Commander Kinsey wrote:
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?

Whether I have a car or not has nothing to with your desire to be
nannied about obscure rules of a country you wish to visit.

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.

Something is being discussed and you say "Are you saying that...?" on
something completely unconnected. The fact you asked a question suggests
you want a response of some sort.

So you got a response. Don't complain if it isn't what you want.

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

When you get your problems 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.

It doesn't require an opinion. Whatever the rules are on this particular
matter, you or I would not be able to do anything about it. So if it is
something that interests you and *your* research reveals a worst case
scenario, my answer remains, "it's tough".

On 20/06/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
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

Grow up.

Face the facts.

That's a wasted wish, but I wish it all the same.

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.

...says he who denies being a serial law-breaker (when he judges it more
convenient - for him).

Prove it. You demand proof from others for their ideas, so it's up to
you to be consistent.

Yes, a bike is a convenient means of transport for some journeys while
posing less danger to others than a car would. You seem to have a
problem with that.

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

See what I mean?

Yes, it shows you live in some sort of Never Never land.

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)

Whatever.

Oh good, the usual indication when something starts to dawn on you.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 15:15:10 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 19/06/2020 20:38, Commander Kinsey wrote:
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:

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?

Whether I have a car or not has nothing to with your desire to be
nannied about obscure rules of a country you wish to visit.

You really can't handle subject changes can you? Does cycling damage the brain or something? You must have that pansy helmet too tight.

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.

Something is being discussed and you say "Are you saying that...?" on
something completely unconnected. The fact you asked a question suggests
you want a response of some sort.

So you got a response. Don't complain if it isn't what you want.

Most people can manage to answer simple questions.

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

When you get your problems fixed.

Ah, so you admit you have OCD. Well do the world a favour and get the **** off the internet, you're an irritating little ****e. OCD means you're thick.

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.

It doesn't require an opinion. Whatever the rules are on this particular
matter, you or I would not be able to do anything about it. So if it is
something that interests you and *your* research reveals a worst case
scenario, my answer remains, "it's tough".

Waffle waffle.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 15:49:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 20/06/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
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

Grow up.

Face the facts.

That's a wasted wish, but I wish it all the same.

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.

...says he who denies being a serial law-breaker (when he judges it more
convenient - for him).

Prove it. You demand proof from others for their ideas, so it's up to
you to be consistent.

Yes, a bike is a convenient means of transport for some journeys while
posing less danger to others than a car would. You seem to have a
problem with that.

Bikes cause accidents when cars need to overtake them, as they go so bloody slow. Keep up with the traffic, or use the bloody cycle paths the drivers' taxes paid for.

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

See what I mean?

Yes, it shows you live in some sort of Never Never land.

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)

Whatever.

Oh good, the usual indication when something starts to dawn on you.

More like you're boring him to tears. Try to learn to communicate in English like everyone else.

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
or use the bloody cycle paths the drivers' taxes paid for.

Their costs come out of council tax, like most roads do, so when you drive your car in another county, you are using roads their council taxes have paid for, not you.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:16:04 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
or use the bloody cycle paths the drivers' taxes paid for.

Their costs come out of council tax, like most roads do, so when you drive your car in another county, you are using roads their council taxes have paid for, not you.

Car drivers pay massive fuel duty, cyclists do not. Yet both pay council tax.

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:57:09 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 17:16:04 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 5:08:23 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
or use the bloody cycle paths the drivers' taxes paid for.

Their costs come out of council tax, like most roads do, so when you drive your car in another county, you are using roads their council taxes have paid for, not you.

Car drivers pay massive fuel duty, cyclists do not. Yet both pay council tax.

Heavy smokers, gamblers and drinkers pay vast amounts in tax - so what?
It's a choice, not compulsory like council tax is.