Police to investigate driver overtaking cyclist on double lines

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:57:25 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/06/2020 15:49, 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:
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.

My error: I wrote "...says he who denies being a serial law-breaker..."
when I obviously meant to say: "...says he who admits being a serial
law-breaker...",

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.

No difficulty at all. Just not along the footway or the wrong way down a
one-way street (etc), eh?

The footway is where bicycles should be, then they wouldn't hold up cars. I've yelled at several of the blighters for using the road when there's a ****ing cycle path adjacent to it! The best one was when the driver in front of me was already arguing with a cyclist for the above. Once they'd finished arguing and the car overtook him, I took over the argument. Perhaps two drivers in a row might teach him a lesson?

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.

It shows - were it necessary - that you don't care about rules meant to
protect others. The only rules for which you ever show support are those
you "think" protect you.

No rules should protect the individual. That's a breach of human rights. If I want to punch you, the law should intervene, but if I want to endanger myself, leave me alone!

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.

It had indeed started to dawn on me that you are never going to grow up.

Cyclists do not have the capacity to learn.

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 9:28:10 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Once they'd finished arguing and the car overtook him, I took over the argument. Perhaps two drivers in a row might teach him a lesson?

All it taught him was that two drivers were in SO much of a hurry and yet had all the time in the world to argue the toss. Keep going FFS after you pass a cyclist - that's what you wanted. Why slow down afterwards to argue?

On 24/06/2020 08:28, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:57:25 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/06/2020 15:49, 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:
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.

My error: I wrote "...says he who denies being a serial law-breaker..."
when I obviously meant to say: "...says he who admits being a serial
law-breaker...",

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.

No difficulty at all. Just not along the footway or the wrong way down a
one-way street (etc), eh?

The footway is where bicycles should be, then they wouldn't hold up
cars.* I've yelled at several of the blighters for using the road when
there's a ****ing cycle path adjacent to it!* The best one was when the
driver in front of me was already arguing with a cyclist for the above.*
Once they'd finished arguing and the car overtook him, I took over the
argument.* Perhaps two drivers in a row might teach him a lesson?

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.

It shows - were it necessary - that you don't care about rules meant to
protect others. The only rules for which you ever show support are those
you "think" protect you.

No rules should protect the individual.* That's a breach of human
rights.* If I want to punch you, the law should intervene, but if I want
to endanger myself, leave me alone!

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.

It had indeed started to dawn on me that you are never going to grow up.

Cyclists do not have the capacity to learn.

Thanks for that compliment ccoming from YOU.

On 23/06/2020 16:57, JNugent wrote:
On 20/06/2020 15:49, 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 you aren't going to grow up?

....that you regret saying that "other peoples' safety is MUCH more
important than your convenience or your ego."


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.

See what I mean?

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

It shows - were it necessary - that you don't care about rules meant
to protect others. The only rules for which you ever show support are
those you "think" protect you.

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is touching
but totally unrealistic.

On 24/06/2020 12:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/06/2020 16:57, JNugent wrote:
On 20/06/2020 15:49, 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 you aren't going to grow up?

...that you regret saying that "other peoples' safety is MUCH more
important than your convenience or your ego."


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.

See what I mean?

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

It shows - were it necessary - that you don't care about rules meant
to protect others. The only rules for which you ever show support are
those you "think" protect you.

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is touching
but totally unrealistic.

Have you got nothing new to add?

We already knew that you regard compliance with the law by cyclists to
be optional, with the choice being left entirely up to the individual on
the bike and subject to any old post-hoc attempted justification that he
or you can "think" up. You know, like the one about it being safer to
cycle through lights at red than to stop and wait for green.

On 24/06/2020 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2020 12:54, TMS320 wrote:

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is
touching but totally unrealistic.

Have you got nothing new to add?

You must be interested in my opinions given the amount of posts you have
reply to and the effort you spend in twisting and goalpost moving.

We already knew...

No. You have decided...

that you regard compliance with the law by cyclists to be optional,
with the choice being left entirely up to the individual on the bike
and subject to any old post-hoc attempted justification that he or
you can "think" up. You know, like the one about it being safer to
cycle through lights at red than to stop and wait for green.

I have heard it said but I don't know the particular circumstances that
prompted it. Nor do you. But when progress was uneventful you can never
prove that that it wasn't the safer thing to do.

On 25/06/2020 09:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/06/2020 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2020 12:54, TMS320 wrote:

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is
touching but totally unrealistic.

Have you got nothing new to add?

You must be interested in my opinions given the amount of posts you have
reply to and the effort you spend in twisting and goalpost moving.

We already knew...

No. You have decided...

....entirely on the basis of evidence provided - nay, stated, by your
good self.

that you regard compliance with the law by cyclists to be optional,
with the choice being left entirely up to the individual on the bike
and subject to any old post-hoc attempted justification that he or
you can "think" up. You know, like the one about it being safer to
cycle through lights at red than to stop and wait for green.

I have heard it said but I don't know the particular circumstances that
prompted it. Nor do you. But when progress was uneventful you can never
prove that that it wasn't the safer thing to do.

See what I mean?

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 22:15:47 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 9:28:10 PM UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Once they'd finished arguing and the car overtook him, I took over the argument. Perhaps two drivers in a row might teach him a lesson?

All it taught him was that two drivers were in SO much of a hurry and yet had all the time in the world to argue the toss. Keep going FFS after you pass a cyclist - that's what you wanted. Why slow down afterwards to argue?

It wasn't that he was holding us up, it was that he didn't like being overtaken. Cyclists seem to have this habit of turning right (although he did indicate) without checking to see if a car is already passing. They do the same when overtaking parked cars. If someone is passing you already, ****ing wait your turn!

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:54:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 23/06/2020 16:57, JNugent wrote:
On 20/06/2020 15:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/06/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2020 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
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.

It shows - were it necessary - that you don't care about rules meant
to protect others. The only rules for which you ever show support are
those you "think" protect you.

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

By all means you use them safely, but don't dictate how safe others are. We all have a different idea of when something becomes too dangerous.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is touching
but totally unrealistic.

Yet your type blindly stick to speed limits. I see them all the time, drivers at the limit on a straight empty road with nothing hidden. Same driver, same speed limit, now a sharp bend with hidden obstacles like driveways, or even some fog, and they go the same speed!

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:10:46 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 24/06/2020 14:22, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2020 12:54, TMS320 wrote:

It shows you are wrong. I want people to use the roads safely.

Your idealism that the rules define a safe/unsafe threshold is
touching but totally unrealistic.

Have you got nothing new to add?

You must be interested in my opinions given the amount of posts you have
reply to and the effort you spend in twisting and goalpost moving.

We already knew...

No. You have decided...

that you regard compliance with the law by cyclists to be optional,
with the choice being left entirely up to the individual on the bike
and subject to any old post-hoc attempted justification that he or
you can "think" up. You know, like the one about it being safer to
cycle through lights at red than to stop and wait for green.

I have heard it said but I don't know the particular circumstances that
prompted it. Nor do you. But when progress was uneventful you can never
prove that that it wasn't the safer thing to do.

I take red lights as a guide (driving or cycling). Some people are utter morons and won't even run a red light to let an ambulance through.