Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?

[MrCheerful]

Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound. Why
no charges??

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/newS/15845196.Woman_comes_forward_after___39_row_between_cyclist_and_driver__39__in_Bournemouth_Road/

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Can't be traced.
Yet another case for the cycling scum to have registration plates.
A bicycle is a road vehicle, most cyclists are too stupid to realise this.
I await Jester who will ask if the driver was wearing a helmet.
Jester is a helmet.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how little harm I do to you.
Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind you won't be alive.

--
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Prat.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:25:38 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, FORGING as "Tom Beasley"
blathered again:

> Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how little harm I do to you.
> Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind you won't be alive.

So, for how long have you been out of the loony bin, you abnormal endlessly
driveling idiot?

--
Gay wanker Birdbrain about women:
"I don't want one, they're nothing but a nuisance."
MID: <op.zco3p...@red.lan>

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Answer the question. Or was it too difficult for you?

--
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere near the place. -- Steven Wright

[Peeler]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:53:46 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, FORGING as "Tom Beasley"
blathered again:

>> Prat.
>
> Answer the question. Or was it too difficult for you?

Why would he stoop down to answer a real retarded prat's question, you
retarded prat?

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"I like to scare my passengers when I drive. I once gave a lift to a
hitchhiker who told me how the last person was a maniac and drove at 90mph.
I immediately accelerated to 110 for his 70 mile journey and he went very
quiet."
MID: <op.zcfxg...@red.lan>

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:35:57 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
> <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:10:19 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
>>> <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>>>> MrCheerful wrote:
>>>>> Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound.
>>>>> Why no charges??
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/newS/15845196.Woman_comes_forward_after___39_row_between_cyclist_and_driver__39__in_Bournemouth_Road/
>>>>
>>>> Can't be traced.
>>>> Yet another case for the cycling scum to have registration plates.
>>>> A bicycle is a road vehicle, most cyclists are too stupid to
>>>> realise this. I await Jester who will ask if the driver was
>>>> wearing a helmet. Jester is a helmet.
>>>
>>> Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how
>>> little harm I do to you. Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind
>>> you won't be alive.
>>
>> Prat.
>
> Answer the question. Or was it too difficult for you?

Prat.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:35:57 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
> <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>> James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:10:19 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
>>> <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>>>> MrCheerful wrote:
>>>>> Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound.
>>>>> Why no charges??
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/newS/15845196.Woman_comes_forward_after___39_row_between_cyclist_and_driver__39__in_Bournemouth_Road/
>>>>
>>>> Can't be traced.
>>>> Yet another case for the cycling scum to have registration plates.
>>>> A bicycle is a road vehicle, most cyclists are too stupid to
>>>> realise this. I await Jester who will ask if the driver was
>>>> wearing a helmet. Jester is a helmet.
>>>
>>> Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how
>>> little harm I do to you. Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind
>>> you won't be alive.
>>
>> Prat.
>
> Answer the question. Or was it too difficult for you?

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:25:38 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, FORGING as "Tom Beasley"
blathered again:

> Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how little
> harm I do to you.
> Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind you won't be alive.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I'll take that as a yes. After all, you left school at 16 and got some poxy little pretend degree that taught you how to hang up a fire extinguisher.

--
What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Go take a course in basic physics. Hint - kinetic energy, momentum....

--
Mixed emotions are when your mother-in-law drives your new Ferrari off the cliff.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

15.
No degree. Neither have you.
But I've done better than you will ever do.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Broke the law did you? Or did they give up on unintelligent wankers like yourself earlier back then?

> No degree. Neither have you.

Liar.

> But I've done better than you will ever do.

Yeah right. I wouldn't trade lives with you if you paid me.

--
When eating a tongue sandwich, how do you know when you've finished?

[Peeler]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:19:37 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> Prat.
>
> I'll take that as a yes. After all, you left school at 16 and got some
> poxy little pretend degree that taught you how to hang up a fire
> extinguisher.

Just take it as you being a prat, you filthy wanker!

--
More of gay wanker Birdbrain's sociopathic sick shit:
"If the car I park next to is more expensive than mine, I don't bother
making sure I don't hit it with the door."
MID: <op.za471...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 22:20:18 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>>
>>> Stand in the middle of the road, I'll cycle into you and see how little
>>> harm I do to you.
>>> Then I'll drive into you and.... nevermind you won't be alive.
>>
>> So, for how long have you been out of the loony bin, you abnormal endlessly
>> driveling idiot?
>
> Go take a course in basic physics. Hint - kinetic energy, momentum....

ANSWER the question when a human stoops down to ask you something, you
disgusting filthy wanker!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"mathematics":
"100 is 5 times more than 20.
"5 times less" is the opposite of "5 times more", so this makes 100 back to
20 again.
20 is 5 times less than 100, the same as dividing by 5.
An elephant is 5 times bigger than a tiger, a tiger is 5 times smaller than
an elephant."
MID: <op.y9piu...@red.lan>

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Will that get me job with Kleeeneze?
Does that mean that I get to walk around in the pissing down rain, in the
cold and speaking with council estate scum, whilst claiming tax credits,
getting letters about national insurance contributions and from the tax man?
Are you not worried?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Nope, your ignorance is once more on display. What a very stupid person you
really are. 15 was the leaving age.
Then, I got something called a job. Your job advisor at the dole would have
told you about these job things. Pity that you were too stupid to
understand.

>
>> No degree. Neither have you.
>
> Liar.

Fake degree.

>
>> But I've done better than you will ever do.
>
> Yeah right. I wouldn't trade lives with you if you paid me.

No sane man would trade lives with you.
Use the razer blade,

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Change the record.

--
Heaven forbid that we allow men and women to become heroes.
Too many regulations exist to keep cowards from being embarrassed.
"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." -- Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

That's why I asked TWO questions.

> Then, I got something called a job. Your job advisor at the dole would have
> told you about these job things. Pity that you were too stupid to
> understand.

People with brains got degrees to get better paid jobs.

>>> No degree. Neither have you.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> Fake degree.

Prove it.

>>> But I've done better than you will ever do.
>>
>> Yeah right. I wouldn't trade lives with you if you paid me.
>
> No sane man would trade lives with you.
> Use the razer blade,

Jump in front of a cyclist.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:23:24 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> Will that get me job with Kleeeneze?
>> Does that mean that I get to walk around in the pissing down rain, in the
>> cold and speaking with council estate scum, whilst claiming tax credits,
>> getting letters about national insurance contributions and from the tax man?
>> Are you not worried?
>
> Change the record.

Stop wanking, Birdbrain!


Gay Wanker Birdbrain about Women:

--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) about women:
"I don't want one. Easy enough to get one if I wanted one."
MID: <op.yqiy7...@red.lan>

--
Gay wanker Birdbrain about women:
"I don't want one, they're nothing but a nuisance."
MID: <op.zco3p...@red.lan>

--
More of wanker Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange world:
"Women should learn to enjoy sex.."
MID: <op.yrs6n...@red.lan>

--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"...men are superior, so a woman dressed as a man looks better, not worse."
MID: <op.yzkf2...@red.lan>

--
Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "mind" at work:
"Satan is god's wife. Woman are evil."
MID: <op.ytcmv...@red.lan>

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "deep thinking":
"A woman should never be allowed to operate anything technical."
MID: <op.yu7gl...@red.lan>

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) deep thinking:
"Looking at a woman the wrong way is now illegal. Raising your eyebrow at an
inappropriate time gets you a jail term. At this rate there won't be any
kids being born soon."
MID:<op.yavzt...@red.lan>

--
Gay wanker Birdbrain about women:

"99% of females are not worth having."
MID: <op.za7ek...@red.lan>

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

One answer was enough. Why are you too thick to understand one answer?

>
>> Then, I got something called a job. Your job advisor at the dole
>> would have told you about these job things. Pity that you were too
>> stupid to understand.
>
> People with brains got degrees to get better paid jobs.
>
>>>> No degree. Neither have you.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>
>> Fake degree.
>
> Prove it.

You are delivery boy. That says it all about your alleged degree.

>
>>>> But I've done better than you will ever do.
>>>
>>> Yeah right. I wouldn't trade lives with you if you paid me.
>>
>> No sane man would trade lives with you.
>> Use the razer blade,
>
> Jump in front of a cyclist.

If the scum are on the footpath, I do.
Not one has ever stood up to me.
Just like yourself, they are cowards and wankers.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Answer my question. Snigger .....................
I'm off now for nice nosebag.
You have been a good piss take.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

So which question were you answering?

>>> Then, I got something called a job. Your job advisor at the dole
>>> would have told you about these job things. Pity that you were too
>>> stupid to understand.
>>
>> People with brains got degrees to get better paid jobs.

That's it, ignore the difficult parts.

>>>>> No degree. Neither have you.
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Fake degree.
>>
>> Prove it.
> You are delivery boy. That says it all about your alleged degree.

Bollocks.

>>>>> But I've done better than you will ever do.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah right. I wouldn't trade lives with you if you paid me.
>>>
>>> No sane man would trade lives with you.
>>> Use the razer blade,
>>
>> Jump in front of a cyclist.
>
> If the scum are on the footpath, I do.
> Not one has ever stood up to me.
> Just like yourself, they are cowards and wankers.

Maybe they're more polite than you and move around you like any other pedestrian. A bicycle isn't a vehicle.

--
Why are all the niggers fast runners?
All the slow ones are in jail.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

You asked three questions, which you've asked countless times before and I've already answered, hence, "change the record".

--
How does a Welshman find a sheep in tall grass?
Very satisfying.

[TMS320]

"The driver of a black Honda CRV – a local woman aged in her 40s –
challenged a female cyclist who she believed was about to go through a
red traffic light."

A vigilante, huh? Was it a verbal challenge, illegal use of the horn or
a threat with a lethal weapon?

[JNugent]

Reading it, it sounds much more like a criminal on a bike versus a
law-abiding victim, doesn't it?

Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions?

[JNugent]

On 17/01/2018 09:16, TMS320 wrote:

The cyclist criminal was the one with the lethal weapon:

QUOTE:
...the cyclist approached the victim and again became abusive, produced
a small pointed item from a compartment on the bike and threatened to
stab the [victim].

She also reportedly rammed her bike into the victim...
ENDQUOTE

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 5:29:36 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
> Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound. Why
> no charges??
>
> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/newS/15845196.Woman_comes_forward_after___39_row_between_cyclist_and_driver__39__in_Bournemouth_Road/

If the Police wont prosecute in this case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz_c6UH9Ev8
Where the assault with a deadly weapon, the assailant and the (traceable) weapon's serial number were all caught on camera what makes you think they will pursue an unsubstantiated claim?

[JNugent]

Are you alright in the head?

That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

[TMS320]

It says of the driver "believed [the person on the bicycle] was about to

go through a red traffic light".

An attempt at telepathy. Was it you?

"It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked
and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle
and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut."

A description of the bike coming from behind, legally using the space,
and the driver deciding it was a good idea to squeeze it against the kerb.

> Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions?

No charges have been brought so there is no chance of it going to court
to prove criminal action. I thought you held that principle in high regard.

[JNugent]

Don't dissemble (break that longstanding habit of yours).

Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions?

Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no
wrong?

[TMS320]

What criminal actions?

> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no
> wrong?

I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".

When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue
then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the
bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.

[JNugent]

How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the

woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from

the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for
a start?

Do you approve of that?

>> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no
>> wrong?
>
> I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".

> When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue
> then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the
> bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.

I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way
street. And so I was (inadvertently).

I took the advice in good part and turned my vehicle around in as short
a distance as was possible so as to comply with the law.

Years before that, I was waiting at a set of traffic lights in Holloway,
London when a cab driver honked his horn and called across to me that I,
waiting on the right under the impression that the street was a one-way
street, was in fact on the wrong side of a two way road (not an offence
as such, but not ideal). I thanked him and complied with normal
directional woking as soon as the red lighht turned green.

Why don't cyclists take such advice well?

Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
and threats?

[TMS320]

On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:

>>> Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions?
>>
>> What criminal actions?
>
> How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the
> woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror
> from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it
> shut", for a start?
>
> Do you approve of that?

"It was reported..."

We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken
place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place.

I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front
of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider
to turn round and cause damage.

I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and
decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment,
causing the rider to crash into the side of the car.

I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't.

>>> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can
>>> do no wrong?
>>
>> I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".
>
>> When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to
>> argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of
>> the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.
>
> I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
> being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
> other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a
> one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently).

So what?

> Why don't cyclists take such advice well?

I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in
single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in
safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she
eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us
down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable
conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded.

(1) a note for some whingers
(2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping
(3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver
(4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far
I mean by 'ahead'
(5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2

Again, so what?

> Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
> and threats?

From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the
press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press
doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each
of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions
of events where nothing in particular happened.

It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a
bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way
(unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the
driver's perspective.

Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride
a bicycle.

[JNugent]

On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote:
> On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions?
>>>
>>> What criminal actions?
>
>> How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the
>>  woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror
>>  from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it
>> shut", for a start?
>>
>> Do you approve of that?
>
> "It was reported..."

Unless we all just happened to be there at the time and were all looking
in the same direction, what more could you hope for, other than a report?

> We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken
> place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place.

You can always ask her.

> I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front
> of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider
> to turn round and cause damage.
> I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and
> decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment,
> causing the rider to crash into the side of the car.

There was no report of a collision. You fabricated it.

> I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't.

As reported, of course.

What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have?

>>>> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can
>>>>  do no wrong?
>>>
>>> I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".

It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision.

>>> When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to
>>> argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of
>>> the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.

>> I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
>> being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
>> other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way
>> street. And so I was (inadvertently).

> So what?

So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told
that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it.

>> Why don't cyclists take such advice well?

> I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in
> single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in
> safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she
> eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us
> down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable
> conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded.

What are you talking about? 1

> (1) a note for some whingers
> (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping
> (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver
> (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far
> I mean by 'ahead'
> (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2

What are you talking about? 2

> Again, so what?

It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread.

>> Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
>> and threats?

> From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the
> press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press
> doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each
> of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions
> of events where nothing in particular happened.

From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially
in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this
thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported
here on usenet as well.

> It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a
> bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way
> (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the
> driver's perspective.

Sounding a horn?

Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way
street?

> Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride
> a bicycle.

The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing.

Obeying the rules of the road is quite another.

[TMS320]

I have made a suggestion, not fabricated anything.

>> I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't.
>
> As reported, of course.

You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination.

> What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have? >
>>>>> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can
>>>>>  do no wrong?
>>>>
>>>> I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".
>
> It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision.
>
>>>> When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to
>>>> argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of
>>>> the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.
>
>>> I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
>>> being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
>>> other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a
>>> one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently).
>
>> So what?
>
> So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told
> that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it.

They told while they are moving?

>>> Why don't cyclists take such advice well?
>
>> I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in
>> single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in
>> safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she
>> eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us
>> down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable
>> conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded.
>
> What are you talking about? 1
>
>> (1) a note for some whingers
>> (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping
>> (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver
>> (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how
>> far I mean by 'ahead'
>> (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2
>
> What are you talking about? 2
>
>> Again, so what?
>
> It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread.

No more irrelevant than your anecdote.

>>> Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
>>> and threats?
>
>> From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the
>> press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press
>> doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for
>> each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the
>> millions of events where nothing in particular happened.
>
> From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially
> in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this
> thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported
> here on usenet as well.

You are influenced by press and newsgroups? So the fact that the press
doesn't produce over 100 articles a week about pedestrian KSIs means
they don't happen? My invitation to meet in London to point out what you
claim to observe is still open.

>> It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a
>> bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening
>> way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from
>> the driver's perspective.
>
> Sounding a horn?

It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres.

> Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way
> street?

As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist?

>> Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride
>> a bicycle.
>
> The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing.

It's nothing to do with mechanical skills

> Obeying the rules of the road is quite another.

Drivers don't have any moral ground.

[JNugent]

You fabricated a story. There isn;'t the slightest bit of evidence to
support it and plenty to suggest something different.

As I said, it's just a symptom of your "cyclists cannot do anything
wrong" beliefs.

>>> I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You
>>> haven't.
>>
>> As reported, of course.
>
> You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination.

And fabricate something, like you did, you mean?

It's not even as though the report was not 101% credible. We all know
that cyclists are very willing to show contempt for the law.

>> What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have?

>>>>>> Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can
>>>>>>  do no wrong?

>>>>> I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".
>>
>> It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision.

>>>>> When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to
>>>>> argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of
>>>>> the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.
>>
>>>> I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
>>>> being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
>>>> other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a
>>>> one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently).
>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told
>> that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it.
>
> They told while they are moving?

I stopped to listen on the one occasion and was already stopped (at a
red traffic light - fancy that!) on the other. I listened politely to
advice and heeded it.

>>>> Why don't cyclists take such advice well?

>>> I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in
>>> single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in
>>> safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she
>>> eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us
>>> down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable
>>> conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded.

>> What are you talking about? 1

>>> (1) a note for some whingers
>>> (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping
>>> (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver
>>> (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how
>>> far I mean by 'ahead'
>>> (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2

>> What are you talking about? 2
>>
>>> Again, so what?
>>
>> It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the
>> thread.
>
> No more irrelevant than your anecdote.

My tales (that's two in 46 years of driving, BTW) were true.

>>>> Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
>>>> and threats?
>>
>>> From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the
>>> press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The
>>> press doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report
>>> for each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of
>>> the millions of events where nothing in particular happened.
>>
>>  From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially
>> in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this
>> thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported
>> here on usenet as well.
>
> You are influenced by press and newsgroups? So the fact that the press
> doesn't produce over 100 articles a week about pedestrian KSIs means
> they don't happen? My invitation to meet in London to point out what you
> claim to observe is still open.
>
>>> It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a
>>> bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening
>>> way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is
>>> from the driver's perspective.
>>
>> Sounding a horn?
>
> It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres.
>
>> Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one
>> way street?
>
> As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist?

With your voice?

Wait until he stops at the next red traffic light?

Ah... there's an obvious difficulty...

>>> Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride
>>> a bicycle.
>>
>> The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing.
>
> It's nothing to do with mechanical skills
>
>> Obeying the rules of the road is quite another.
>
> Drivers don't have any moral ground.

Rubbish.

[TMS320]

On 23/01/18 01:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/01/2018 23:37, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/01/18 16:44, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote:

>>>> I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded.
>>>> You haven't.
>>>
>>> As reported, of course.
>>
>> You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination.

On reflection, I suppose it's a big ask to get imagination out of a dumb
program running in a computer somewhere.

> And fabricate something, like you did, you mean?

Fabricate - invent (something) in order to deceive.

There is no deception in trying to put it into a physical context.

> It's not even as though the report was not 101% credible. We all know
> that cyclists are very willing to show contempt for the law.

There is no hint of law broken before the driver "challenged" the
cyclist or in the moment between challenge and damage. You have decided
- without evidence - that the damage was criminal.

Just a symptom of your "cyclists cannot do anything right" belief.

<...>

> My tales (that's two in 46 years of driving, BTW) were true.

So was mine. And it was only a few years ago.

<...>

>>>> It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message
>>>> to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or
>>>> threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported
>>>> when the story is from the driver's perspective.
>>>
>>> Sounding a horn?
>>
>> It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres.
>>
>>> Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a
>>> one way street?
>>
>> As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist?
>
> With your voice?

Oh, are you also on a bike? Otherwise, what message are you going to get
across in the three garbled words that arrive at his ears?

> Wait until he stops at the next red traffic light?

That assumes you have the ability to get from the point where the
"incident" occurred to that point faster than him. So you're obviously
not on foot at this time.

> Ah... there's an obvious difficulty...

Indeed. But not for the reason you're thinking.

>>>> Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone
>>>> how to ride a bicycle.
>>>
>>> The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with mechanical skills
>>
>>> Obeying the rules of the road is quite another.
>>
>> Drivers don't have any moral ground.
>
> Rubbish.

It's a valid opinion. And I can say it as both driver and cyclist. What
about you?