Mobile phone using driver gets karma!

On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as a
warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of reading a
document which may or may not say what you may or may not be trying
to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or where
otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that pedestrians
have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles without becoming
an obstacle to traffic travelling across the junction. The only time
you can go through a red light is if a police officer directs you to
do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass through
it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light usually
stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough time to
stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It means you
can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no pedestrians still
crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the other
side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and, foir that
matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing traffic law). It is
not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.




My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

--
Bod

On 11/12/2018 17:30, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as a
warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of reading
a document which may or may not say what you may or may not be
trying to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or where
otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that
pedestrians have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles
without becoming an obstacle to traffic travelling across the
junction. The only time you can go through a red light is if a police
officer directs you to do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass through
it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light
usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough
time to stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It means
you can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no pedestrians still
crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the
other side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and, foir
that matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing traffic
law). It is not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.

My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

TRANSLATION:

Bod: "You are right, I was wrong and I don't like that".

All you had to do was think about h proposition, in the abstract.

"Stop if you can" (that's a reasonable enough précis) *has* to call for
on-the-spot judgment. It can't operate in any other way.

On 11/12/2018 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:30, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as a
warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to
drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of reading
a document which may or may not say what you may or may not be
trying to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or where
otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that
pedestrians have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles
without becoming an obstacle to traffic travelling across the
junction. The only time you can go through a red light is if a
police officer directs you to do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass through
it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light
usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough
time to stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It means
you can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no pedestrians
still crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the
other side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and, foir
that matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing traffic
law). It is not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.

My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

TRANSLATION:

Bod: "You are right, I was wrong and I don't like that".

All you had to do was think about h proposition, in the abstract.

"Stop if you can" (that's a reasonable enough précis) *has* to call for
on-the-spot judgment. It can't operate in any other way.


Legally, amber means stop at the stop line.

On 11/12/2018 18:10, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:30, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as a
warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to
drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of
reading a document which may or may not say what you may or may
not be trying to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or
where otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that
pedestrians have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles
without becoming an obstacle to traffic travelling across the
junction. The only time you can go through a red light is if a
police officer directs you to do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass
through it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light
usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles
enough time to stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It means
you can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no pedestrians
still crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the
other side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and, foir
that matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing traffic
law). It is not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.

My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

TRANSLATION:

Bod: "You are right, I was wrong and I don't like that".

All you had to do was think about h proposition, in the abstract.

"Stop if you can" (that's a reasonable enough précis) *has* to call
for on-the-spot judgment. It can't operate in any other way.


Legally, amber means stop at the stop line.

That's what red means.

Amber has that meaning only in certain circumstances.

On 11/12/2018 20:44, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 18:10, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:30, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as a
warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to
drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of
reading a document which may or may not say what you may or may
not be trying to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or
where otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that
pedestrians have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles
without becoming an obstacle to traffic travelling across the
junction. The only time you can go through a red light is if a
police officer directs you to do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass
through it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light
usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles
enough time to stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It means
you can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no pedestrians
still crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the
other side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and, foir
that matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing traffic
law). It is not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.

My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

TRANSLATION:

Bod: "You are right, I was wrong and I don't like that".

All you had to do was think about h proposition, in the abstract.

"Stop if you can" (that's a reasonable enough précis) *has* to call
for on-the-spot judgment. It can't operate in any other way.


Legally, amber means stop at the stop line.

That's what red means.

Amber has that meaning only in certain circumstances.


No, it has that meaning, 'except' in certain circumstances.:

(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as
red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop
line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop
line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown
immediately before it.

On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.

I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding
on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another
cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a
Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and
hold your breath.

Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize?

It was a sarky reply to your effort.

A failed sarky reply, you mean.

Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between
riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the
pavement by a different person at a different time and place.

There was no conection between them except for the fact that they
both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted)
offences by cyclists.

When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for
motor vehicles?

You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's correct
fact to a collision on the pavement.

They were discrete examples of obvious danger to pedestrians caused
by cyclists, one of them a case of injury caused to a child on the
footway immediately outside a garden gate.

What on earth could make anyone normal think that one example was
directly connected to the other?

Nobody "normal" would think so but *you* did.

On 11/12/2018 22:45, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2018 20:44, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 18:10, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 17:30, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:12, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:26, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 06:04, Bod wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:47, Bod wrote:
On 10/12/2018 18:33, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
soup wrote:
On 10/12/2018 14:31, wrote:
Â* Or driving through an amber light, for that matter?


Not at all illegal.Â* The whole point of amber lights is as
a warning
that the lights are about to change and if it is safer to
drive on
than attempt to stop then do so.

I can't believe that you said that.



Amber means stop if you are able to.

Wrong.

Amber means "stop, if that is the safer course of action".
Â*
Â* https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/traffic-lights-uk/

What does it say?

Try to make your point for yourself. I have no intention of
reading a document which may or may not say what you may or may
not be trying to say.
Â*
Â* What do the traffic light colours mean?
A red traffic light means stop at or behind the white line (or
where otherwise indicated). The white line is positioned so that
pedestrians have room to cross in front of the waiting vehicles
without becoming an obstacle to traffic travelling across the
junction. The only time you can go through a red light is if a
police officer directs you to do so.
A red and amber light together still means stop – don’t pass
through it until green shows

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light
usually stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles
enough time to stop safely*

A flashing amber light is shown at a pedestrian crossing. It
means you can go if it’s safe to do so (i.e. there are no
pedestrians still crossing)

A green light means go if it is safe to do so (i.e. there are not
pedestrians crossing) and there is space for your vehicle on the
other side of the junction.
If the lights are out, proceed with caution as nobody has the
right-of-way.

"An amber light means stop if you are able to"

"If".

The rule calls for judgment on the part of the road-user (and,
foir that matter, on the part of anyone charged with enforcing
traffic law). It is not and cannot be a hard and fast rule.

My word, you are an argumentative pedant.

TRANSLATION:

Bod: "You are right, I was wrong and I don't like that".

All you had to do was think about h proposition, in the abstract.

"Stop if you can" (that's a reasonable enough précis) *has* to call
for on-the-spot judgment. It can't operate in any other way.


Legally, amber means stop at the stop line.

That's what red means.

Amber has that meaning only in certain circumstances.

No, it has that meaning, 'except' in certain circumstances.:

Those two phrases mean the same thing.

It could be summarised as: "When x is the case, amber means the same as
red; when y is the case, it doesn't".

(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as
red, except that.. [smip]

Exactly.

It doesn't matter a jot what has been snipped. The point is that amber
does not mean the same as red. If it did, there would be no need for
amber. Indeed, I have seen traffic lights (not in the UK) where there is
only red and green.

as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop
line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop
line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown
immediately before it.

Quite so. Many thanks for confirming what I said.

One could summarise that as "Amber is the same as red except when it's
the same as green".

On 11/12/2018 22:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.

I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding
on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another
cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a
Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and
hold your breath.

Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize?

It was a sarky reply to your effort.

A failed sarky reply, you mean.

Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between
riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the
pavement by a different person at a different time and place.

There was no conection between them except for the fact that they
both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted)
offences by cyclists.

When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for
motor vehicles?

No, that just isn't in the same league as your previous attempt at a
non-sequitur. You'll have to think of a better one if you're going to
top your effort of a day or two back (which is still on track for the
annual award).

You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's correct
fact to a collision on the pavement.

I did not.

They were discrete examples of obvious danger to pedestrians caused
by cyclists, one of them a case of injury caused to a child on the
footway immediately outside a garden gate.

What on earth could make anyone normal think that one example was
directly connected to the other?

Nobody "normal" would think so but *you* did.

I never thought or said that they were connected - both involved
criminal cyclists.

But you - the now-self-confessed abnormal you - thought that the two
cases were somehow connected by nore than the involvement of a cyclist
breaking the law and being at fault.

That's no-one's responsibility but yours.

On 12/12/2018 02:08, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 22:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 14:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 13:27, JNugent wrote:
On 11/12/2018 08:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/12/2018 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 19:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/12/2018 16:01, JNugent wrote:
On 10/12/2018 13:46, wrote:

Speed limits do not apply to cyclists save for a very
few exceptions.

The laws of physics and the anatomy of the human body, on
the other hand, always apply to cyclists, as difficult as
some of them find to accept that, especially when the
risk accrues to other people who are doing such
outrageous such as walking out of the garden gates onto
the footway, or crossing the road.

I see. The consequence of a collision by a cyclist riding
on the pavement is now determined by the speed of another
cyclist travelling along the road. Is this your entry for a
Nobel prize in quantum physics? Please do us a favour and
hold your breath.

Are you trying for the Non Sequitur Of The Year prize?

It was a sarky reply to your effort.

A failed sarky reply, you mean.

Only if you explain the sequitur you attempted to make between
riding a bike on the road at a legal speed and a collision on the
pavement by a different person at a different time and place.

There was no conection between them except for the fact that they
both relate to recent(-ish) well-reported cases of (prosecuted)
offences by cyclists.

When has a cyclist been prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit for
motor vehicles?

No, that just isn't in the same league as your previous attempt at a
non-sequitur. You'll have to think of a better one if you're going to
top your effort of a day or two back (which is still on track for the
annual award).

Nugent's standard response. Make up up a paragraph using lots of random
words.

You decided to make to make some sort of connection with Simon's
correct fact to a collision on the pavement.

I did not.

Well, we are are nearly into pantomine season.

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:58:09 PM UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:45:57 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

*An amber light means stop if you are able to. The amber light usually
stays on for between 4-6 seconds to give all vehicles enough time to
stop safely*

I have just checked the cyclist's video again and the driver DID stop well before the RED light, so no problem there, BUT after the lights went to green he shot off and crashed into the back of the car in front as he had wasted so much time arguing the toss with the cyclist at the lights.

SEE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ0x...A#action=share

Lest people think that the clip was snipped to show the driver in a bad light, the cyclist has also provided the video IN FULL he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb_NHo39b88