|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted. No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a non-existent one. The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought" that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there. But of course, it doesn't say anything about it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted. No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a non-existent one. The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought" that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there. But of course, it doesn't say anything about it. You said "Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well." You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/2018 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted. No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a non-existent one. The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought" that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there. But of course, it doesn't say anything about it. You said "Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well." You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise. The evidence is already there. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/18 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 28/10/2018 17:11, TMS320 wrote: On 27/10/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? This person has a dashcam:- ~ he decided to go public to bleat about something; ~ we only saw edited highlights. It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts. Unless you can prove the unlikely proposition that he also had a "dash" can shooting of the rear screen, it is you who cannot grasp the simple context: there is no footage of what happened earlier (when the criminal on the bike later alleged he was being "obstructed"). But that latter is what you were asking for. Not in the slightest. Saying that doesn't change what you were asking for (which is evidence from a dash cam of something alleged to have been happening *behind* the car. Quote me. It's amazing how you have so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts. That evidence is 99% certain not to exist and your asking for it is an evasion of the issue. However, later information now fills in the gap. Let's hope that when the police saw the video they just said diddums. About what? The alleged obstruction? The damage to the driver's pride. I hope so too. But they cannot ignore expensive criminal damage committed by a criminal. How would you like it if £2000 worth of damage was done to your property? And have you dropped the "innocent until proven guilty" bit? Very wise now that you know how it works (and how it doesn't work). I still don't know how it works. I can't be bothered to ask for another non-answer. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Berk in a Merc gets attacked by bike weapon
On 28/10/18 22:00, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:45:38 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:33:33 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 21:24, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 9:21:08 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 28/10/2018 18:54, Simon Jester wrote: On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 11:49:49 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 27/10/2018 16:30, TMS320 wrote: On 26/10/18 12:07, JNugent wrote: On 26/10/2018 00:12, TMS320 wrote: On 25/10/18 12:33, JNugent wrote: On 25/10/2018 09:48, TMS320 wrote: You are unable to deduce from my comments (and Simon's) that events which should have been recorded by the dashcam are missing? You seem to have rather missed the point (again). The cyclist's "complaint"is reported to have been that he and his bike were obstructed by a car. Unless the car had a "rear dashcam", it is hard to see how even you could convince yourself that footage of the "obstruction" could exist. It's reported, huh? Well, the crazed cyclist (which is how he is reported) is reported to have offered the "justification" for the crime that he had been obstructed. It's all there, at the same source. I don't care what was reported. Especially when it doesn't support what you'd rather believe. OK, so let's see the conditions in front of the vehicle and any reason why it was going slowly or stopping. It is also not unknown (at least, it's something just about every cyclist knows) for drivers to overtake and then cut in and stop. You're best asking the publisher for that (if there is anything to see, that is - what's the betting that the source of the obstruction was a red traffic light, meaningless to the average London cyclist, crazed or otherwise?). So contact the Daily Mail. And do let us all know how you get on. I merely passed a remark about the lack of material that seems commonplace when a "professional" driver produces this stuff to have a winge. Unlike you, and him, I have yet to make a judgement. How many cars have dash-cams that face the direction of travel, lket alone filming (OK - video-recording) out of the rear screen? My car has front and rear cams. Oh well... there's the answer. Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you have any evidence to connect the equipment level of your car with that of all the rest of the vehicles on the road? If not, why did you intervene with such an ill-judged and irrelevant remark? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Apology accepted. No apology was either necessary or intended, so please don't accept a non-existent one. The only possible reason for your silly claim was that you "thought" that the claimed existence of your cameras said something about the number of cameras (front- or rear-facing) out there. But of course, it doesn't say anything about it. You said "Jester thinks that 100% of vehicles not only have a dash-cam but also have a rear-facing camera as well." You need to provide evidence for that claim, or apologise. Isn't it amazing how Nugent has so much difficulty grasping very simple concepts? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist attacked by cycle weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 1 | October 17th 15 07:57 AM |
Cyclist attacked by stationary car weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 5 | August 15th 15 12:53 PM |
Cyclist attacked by sheep weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 2 | August 15th 15 08:30 AM |
Cyclist attacked by bus shelter weapon | Mrcheerful | UK | 3 | March 11th 14 08:53 PM |
Norwich man attacked by pavement bike-weapon | Mentalguy2k8[_2_] | UK | 25 | July 5th 13 09:59 PM |