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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.