|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 09:28, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 21:25, Simon Mason wrote: Even if he has no driving licence, MOT, insurance, bald tyres, no lights, dodgy number plate, faulty exhaust, no seat belt on, using a mobile, has faulty eyesight, or any number of driving offences, he is still driving a car.... ...but is a cyclist. Well, not strictly speaking surely, what if they insist that they don't and can't ride a bike? Even though virtually anyone can be a cyclist, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone without a driving licence has to be a cyclist. If you amended what you've said to: "...but is a cyclist, or probably could be if they chose to be", then maybe that would be better. You are right to express concern. I should have said: "...but is a *qualified* cyclist". You certainly can't call someone with no driving licence a qualified driver. Isn't it amazing, really, that someone as anti-social and even socio-pathic as described above by the PP is still qualified to ride a bike, with those qualities being no bar to it? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 10:05, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:37:17 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 20:26, Bod wrote: On 03/06/2020 20:18, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 19:13:56 GMT, JNugent wrote: [] Probably being used by a qualified cyclist (someone with no driving licence). You are getting tediously repetitive. Someone with no regard for law or its requirements and who has no intention of complying with the law by learning roadcraft, control of a vehicle or applying for (let alone paying for) a driving licence - and has absolutely no regard for the safety of others - is still a fully qualified cyclist. The law requires no more of him. That irritates you, doesn't it? Troll tactic. It's still the truth. It's a blinkered, partial truth. It is the truth. It isn't the whole truth, but then, nothing ever could be (apart from "42", I hear). That car drivers need to be careful and responsible when in charge of fast lumps of metal, is of course, paramount and thus at least minimally trained. And absolutely uncontested by me. You will get no argument on that. You are far too concerned about law, and far too unconcerned about safety. Until you remedy that there's little chance of a meeting of minds. I am concerned about law and safety. Both are paramount. Only an idiot excuses lawbreaking on the basis that it was "safe". On that basis, you could defend burglary. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 10:07, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:40:34 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 20:40, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 19:35, Simon Mason wrote: Not a cyclist in sight. QUOTE: Two men have been taken to hospital after being hit by a car in London's Sloane Square, police say. Government minister Greg Hands tweeted a vehicle had "mounted the pavement and struck pedestrians" before being abandoned nearby. Cordons have been put around the area while the vehicle is searched by officers. The Met said the incident was not terror-related. A man has been arrested on suspicion of committing driving offences. London Ambulance Service said it was called out at just after 12:00 BST to reports of a collision "involving pedestrians". "We dispatched two ambulance crews and a medic in a car, with the first of our crews arriving in under four minutes," it said in a statement. "We treated two men at the scene and took them both to hospital." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...SThisFB&fbclid =IwAR1MgPy72OIG6xvN2UC_TRS53BP63GGGis69uqdj-82FGDKgceZw2FQKUAU Probably being used by a qualified cyclist (someone with no driving licence). All well and good. But you do realise, on that basis, any seemingly driver only related incident that occurs is on topic for this group? Only for unlicensed drivers (ie, cyclists). Did I mention how tedious you're getting on this? Why are you so against truth? At least until such time as we know for sure a valid driving licence exists for each and every driver concerned. There will surely be plenty of reports available to post in, and in answer to the question, "Where's the cyclist?" - the answer, of course, will be that he's driving the motor vehicle for all we know. That's alright by me. Pfft. The truth does irritate you, clearly. Well, some truth does, at least. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 10:12, Pamela wrote:
On 20:13 3 Jun 2020, JNugent said: On 03/06/2020 19:35, Simon Mason wrote: Not a cyclist in sight. QUOTE: Two men have been taken to hospital after being hit by a car in London's Sloane Square, police say. Government minister Greg Hands tweeted a vehicle had "mounted the pavement and struck pedestrians" before being abandoned nearby. Cordons have been put around the area while the vehicle is searched by officers. The Met said the incident was not terror-related. A man has been arrested on suspicion of committing driving offences. London Ambulance Service said it was called out at just after 12:00 BST to reports of a collision "involving pedestrians". "We dispatched two ambulance crews and a medic in a car, with the first of our crews arriving in under four minutes," it said in a statement. "We treated two men at the scene and took them both to hospital." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...sFB&fbclid=IwA R1MgPy72OIG6xvN2UC_TRS53BP63GGGis69uqdj-82FGDKgceZw2FQKUAU Probably being used by a qualified cyclist (someone with no driving licence). Why "qualified"? Anyone with no qualifications of any sort is still qualified to ride a bicycle. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 10:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 10:21:59 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: regardless of whether he has a driving licence or not, he definitely is a car driver arrested on suspicion of committing driving offences. Even a 16 year old scrote from Toxteth who steals a car and drives it is still a driver. That much is obvious. They will be arrested and tried for *driving* offences, not walking offences. The person you try to describe ('Ull would surely be a more accurate location) is still a fully-qualified cyclist. As a driver he is an unqualified impostor. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 15:34, JNugent wrote:
I am concerned about law and safety. Both are paramount. Then stop driving. Only an idiot excuses lawbreaking on the basis that it was "safe". On that basis, you could defend burglary. Only an idiot thinks theft and traffic violations are equivalent. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 15:35 4 Jun 2020, JNugent said:
On 04/06/2020 10:12, Pamela wrote: On 20:13 3 Jun 2020, JNugent said: On 03/06/2020 19:35, Simon Mason wrote: Not a cyclist in sight. QUOTE: Two men have been taken to hospital after being hit by a car in London's Sloane Square, police say. Government minister Greg Hands tweeted a vehicle had "mounted the pavement and struck pedestrians" before being abandoned nearby. Cordons have been put around the area while the vehicle is searched by officers. The Met said the incident was not terror-related. A man has been arrested on suspicion of committing driving offences. London Ambulance Service said it was called out at just after 12:00 BST to reports of a collision "involving pedestrians". "We dispatched two ambulance crews and a medic in a car, with the first of our crews arriving in under four minutes," it said in a statement. "We treated two men at the scene and took them both to hospital." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52907361? SThisFB&fbclid=I wA R1MgPy72OIG6xvN2UC_TRS53BP63GGGis69uqdj-82FGDKgceZw2FQKUAU Probably being used by a qualified cyclist (someone with no driving licence). Why "qualified"? Anyone with no qualifications of any sort is still qualified to ride a bicycle. "Qualified to be a cyclist" (which is still stretching it) does not convey quite the same meaning as "qualified cyclist". Nevertheless it is a valuable point. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:35:13 GMT, JNugent
wrote: On 04/06/2020 10:07, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:40:34 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 20:40, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: [Snipped] Only trolls think length of post is a sign of winning. Only for unlicensed drivers (ie, cyclists). Did I mention how tedious you're getting on this? Why are you so against truth? You seem to be unable to do much but repeat your phrase. This is merely repetition, not a proper argument. At least until such time as we know for sure a valid driving licence exists for each and every driver concerned. There will surely be plenty of reports available to post in, and in answer to the question, "Where's the cyclist?" - the answer, of course, will be that he's driving the motor vehicle for all we know. That's alright by me. Pfft. The truth does irritate you, clearly. Well, some truth does, at least. Do you have trouble assimilating the knowledge that the overwhelming numbers of deaths and injuries on roads are caused by motor vehicles? /rhetorical Q -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:28:10 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Even though virtually anyone can be a cyclist, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone without a driving licence has to be a cyclist. An old workmate I used to go around with was banned from driving, but still continued to drive us around the local pubs in the 1970's. He had never ridden a bicycle in his life, only motorbikes and cars. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Danger to pedestrians?
On 04/06/2020 17:51, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:35:13 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 04/06/2020 10:07, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:40:34 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 03/06/2020 20:40, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: [Snipped] Only trolls think length of post is a sign of winning. Only for unlicensed drivers (ie, cyclists). Did I mention how tedious you're getting on this? Why are you so against truth? You seem to be unable to do much but repeat your phrase. This is merely repetition, not a proper argument. At least until such time as we know for sure a valid driving licence exists for each and every driver concerned. There will surely be plenty of reports available to post in, and in answer to the question, "Where's the cyclist?" - the answer, of course, will be that he's driving the motor vehicle for all we know. That's alright by me. Pfft. The truth does irritate you, clearly. Well, some truth does, at least. Do you have trouble assimilating the knowledge that the overwhelming numbers of deaths and injuries on roads are caused by motor vehicles? /rhetorical Q Do you have trouble in seeing that that is nothing to the point? It does NOT justify cycling along footways. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Danger! Danger! That cyclist there! You're in a shipping lane! | [email protected] | Techniques | 1 | October 14th 15 10:28 PM |
DANGER! DANGER! Beware wandering sheep if MTBing in Greece | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 25 | September 23rd 15 12:10 PM |
Danger! Danger! (Worst liability waiver?) | [email protected] | General | 16 | February 12th 08 08:18 AM |
"..Cyclists and pedestrians in the UK are in greater danger than those in most other industrialised countries in Europe..." according to a recent DfT report. | spindrift | UK | 120 | May 22nd 07 08:15 PM |
DO NOT WEAR YOUR HELMLET!! DANGER, DANGER, danger | TJ | Mountain Biking | 4 | December 23rd 06 06:03 PM |