Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Driver killed by brick weapon.

48 views
Skip to first unread message

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 10:54:12 AM8/10/17
to

Tony Dragon

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 11:51:06 AM8/10/17
to
On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
>

Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
see no connection to cycling.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Simon Jester

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 2:06:42 PM8/10/17
to
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
> >
>
> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
> see no connection to cycling.
>

When this happened
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
It was treated as murder.

When this happened
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
It was treated as a childish prank.




Tony Dragon

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 3:04:08 PM8/10/17
to
I can relate to a concrete block being dropped on your vehicle.
Many years ago I had a large road cone dropped on my vehicle while I was
on the M3.

It smashed the windscreen and stayed there, the safety bag also went off.
It's difficult to see where you are going with an air bag & a road cone
in the way.

I managed to pull onto the hard shoulder but nearly hit a police car who
was writing a ticket for another motorist.

He radioed for someone to get to the overbridge but there was nobody there.

There was a school nearby and it was chucking out time, so you guess who
threw it.

swldx...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 5:56:18 PM8/10/17
to
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
> >
>
> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
> see no connection to cycling.

THREW?

Tony Dragon

unread,
Aug 10, 2017, 6:01:39 PM8/10/17
to
Oops

JNugent

unread,
Aug 11, 2017, 8:04:46 AM8/11/17
to
On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
>> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
>>>
>>
>> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
>> see no connection to cycling.

> When this happened
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
> It was treated as murder.

Manslaughter (can you not read?).

> When this happened
> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
> It was treated as a childish prank.

A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade? It must be sixty feet
wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
visible at normal approach speeds.

As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
(yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.

<http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>

Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?

Simon Jester

unread,
Aug 11, 2017, 9:42:46 AM8/11/17
to
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
> >> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
> >> see no connection to cycling.
>
> > When this happened
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
> > It was treated as murder.
>
> Manslaughter (can you not read?).

Originally treated as murder.

>
> > When this happened
> > http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
> > It was treated as a childish prank.
>
> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?

Are you claiming it didn't happen?

> It must be sixty feet
> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
> visible at normal approach speeds.
>

At night?

> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>

The picture shows a cycle lane.

>
> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?

Do your own research.


Rob Morley

unread,
Aug 11, 2017, 2:05:51 PM8/11/17
to
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html

Why is it a weapon when police say evidence points to it being
accidentally thrown up by a passing vehicle? It may have fallen from a
passing vehicle too, in which case the driver could be prosecuted, but
not for assault.

And what does it have to do with cycling?

JNugent

unread,
Aug 11, 2017, 9:17:06 PM8/11/17
to
On 11/08/2017 14:42, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
>>>> see no connection to cycling.
>>
>>> When this happened
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
>>> It was treated as murder.
>>
>> Manslaughter (can you not read?).
>
> Originally treated as murder.

That hardly matters.

>>> When this happened
>>> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
>>> It was treated as a childish prank.
>>
>> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?
>
> Are you claiming it didn't happen?

Not at all.

I am at least as aware as you of the regard in which cyclists are held
by the majority of people.

>> It must be sixty feet
>> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
>> visible at normal approach speeds.

> At night?

Don't cyclists use their low powered version of headlights at night, then?

Or doesn't it matter whether or not they do use lights because they
stare at the ground below the front wheel in an effort to achieve and
maintain speed?

>> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
>> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.

>> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>

> The picture shows a cycle lane.

And?

>> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?
>
> Do your own research.

It was unjustified and all that, but I'm really not that bothered about
the case.

One might have expected yopu to be a bit more exercised about it.

But clearly not.

Have a problem with women, do you?

Simon Jester

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 9:25:44 AM8/12/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 2:17:06 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 14:42, Simon Jester wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
> >>>> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
> >>>> see no connection to cycling.
> >>
> >>> When this happened
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
> >>> It was treated as murder.
> >>
> >> Manslaughter (can you not read?).
> >
> > Originally treated as murder.
>
> That hardly matters.

Why?
The case was originally treated as murder, that is a fact.

>
> >>> When this happened
> >>> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
> >>> It was treated as a childish prank.
> >>
> >> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?
> >
> > Are you claiming it didn't happen?
>
> Not at all.
>
> I am at least as aware as you of the regard in which cyclists are held
> by the majority of people.

And that is OK with you?
If 'the majority of people' decided to exterminate all left handed redheads what should the authorities do?
Supply names, addresses and weapons? Or protect the minority?

>
> >> It must be sixty feet
> >> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
> >> visible at normal approach speeds.
>
> > At night?
>
> Don't cyclists use their low powered version of headlights at night, then?

The vast majority do, thanks for your support.

>
> Or doesn't it matter whether or not they do use lights because they
> stare at the ground below the front wheel in an effort to achieve and
> maintain speed?

The primary vehicle is question is pictured in the article.
Anyone with a brain bigger than that of a fruit fly can see it is designed for an upright riding position.

>
> >> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
> >> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.
>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>
>
> > The picture shows a cycle lane.
>
> And?

You admit cyclists can use the prom in question.

>
> >> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?
> >
> > Do your own research.
>
> It was unjustified and all that, but I'm really not that bothered about
> the case.

So you think it is OK to attempt to murder cyclists?

>
> One might have expected yopu to be a bit more exercised about it.
>
> But clearly not.
>
> Have a problem with women, do you?

Unlike you I am not sexist or racist or religionist or vehicleist, people are people.




JNugent

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 10:03:32 AM8/12/17
to
On 12/08/2017 14:25, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 2:17:06 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 14:42, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
>>>>>> see no connection to cycling.
>>>>
>>>>> When this happened
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
>>>>> It was treated as murder.
>>>>
>>>> Manslaughter (can you not read?).
>>>
>>> Originally treated as murder.
>>
>> That hardly matters.
>
> Why?
> The case was originally treated as murder, that is a fact.

"Treating" a suspicious or other sudden death as murder does not mean
that it was, or will turn out to be, murder.

>>>>> When this happened
>>>>> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
>>>>> It was treated as a childish prank.
>>>>
>>>> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming it didn't happen?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> I am at least as aware as you of the regard in which cyclists are held
>> by the majority of people.
>
> And that is OK with you?
> If 'the majority of people' decided to exterminate all left handed redheads what should the authorities do?
> Supply names, addresses and weapons? Or protect the minority?
>
>>
>>>> It must be sixty feet
>>>> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
>>>> visible at normal approach speeds.
>>
>>> At night?
>>
>> Don't cyclists use their low powered version of headlights at night, then?
>
> The vast majority do, thanks for your support.
>
>>
>> Or doesn't it matter whether or not they do use lights because they
>> stare at the ground below the front wheel in an effort to achieve and
>> maintain speed?
>
> The primary vehicle is question is pictured in the article.

Translation?

> Anyone with a brain bigger than that of a fruit fly can see it is designed for an upright riding position.

All bicycles are meant to be ridden with the cyclist looking ahead (and
occasionally around him). All cyclists are meant to keep a look out for
obstruction of all sorts (just like drivers are).

>>>> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
>>>> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.

>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>

>>> The picture shows a cycle lane.

>> And?

> You admit cyclists can use the prom in question.

They always could.

English isn't your strong subject, is it?

>>>> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?
>>>
>>> Do your own research.
>>
>> It was unjustified and all that, but I'm really not that bothered about
>> the case.

> So you think it is OK to attempt to murder cyclists?

There you go with your defective English. Which bit of "unjustified" did
you fail to understand?

>> One might have expected yopu to be a bit more exercised about it.
>> But clearly not.

>> Have a problem with women, do you?
>
> Unlike you I am not sexist or racist or religionist or vehicleist, people are people.

Unless they are women, when, as far as you are concerned, they've got it
coming?

Simon Jester

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 10:48:44 AM8/12/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 3:03:32 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/08/2017 14:25, Simon Jester wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 2:17:06 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2017 14:42, Simon Jester wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 1:04:46 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 10/08/2017 19:06, Simon Jester wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:51:06 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/08/2017 15:54, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4778020/Driver-killed-concrete-block-hits-van-M11.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unless you are saying it was a cyclist who through the concrete, I can
> >>>>>> see no connection to cycling.
> >>>>
> >>>>> When this happened
> >>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4212619.stm
> >>>>> It was treated as murder.
> >>>>
> >>>> Manslaughter (can you not read?).
> >>>
> >>> Originally treated as murder.
> >>
> >> That hardly matters.
> >
> > Why?
> > The case was originally treated as murder, that is a fact.
>
> "Treating" a suspicious or other sudden death as murder does not mean
> that it was, or will turn out to be, murder.

So why did you say
'Manslaughter (can you not read?).'
I look forward to reading your public apology.

>
> >>>>> When this happened
> >>>>> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
> >>>>> It was treated as a childish prank.
> >>>>
> >>>> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?
> >>>
> >>> Are you claiming it didn't happen?
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >>
> >> I am at least as aware as you of the regard in which cyclists are held
> >> by the majority of people.
> >
> > And that is OK with you?
> > If 'the majority of people' decided to exterminate all left handed redheads what should the authorities do?
> > Supply names, addresses and weapons? Or protect the minority?
> >
> >>
> >>>> It must be sixty feet
> >>>> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
> >>>> visible at normal approach speeds.
> >>
> >>> At night?
> >>
> >> Don't cyclists use their low powered version of headlights at night, then?
> >
> > The vast majority do, thanks for your support.
> >
> >>
> >> Or doesn't it matter whether or not they do use lights because they
> >> stare at the ground below the front wheel in an effort to achieve and
> >> maintain speed?
> >
> > The primary vehicle is question is pictured in the article.
>
> Translation?

No translation should be necessary.

>
> > Anyone with a brain bigger than that of a fruit fly can see it is designed for an upright riding position.
>
> All bicycles are meant to be ridden with the cyclist looking ahead (and
> occasionally around him). All cyclists are meant to keep a look out for
> obstruction of all sorts (just like drivers are).

So you agree your comment about cyclists riding with their heads down was pure bigotry and you are now moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you are wrong.

>
> >>>> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
> >>>> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.
>
> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>
>
> >>> The picture shows a cycle lane.
>
> >> And?
>
> > You admit cyclists can use the prom in question.
>
> They always could.

Your words

"As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
(yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy."

Make your mind up


>
> English isn't your strong subject, is it?
>
> >>>> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?
> >>>
> >>> Do your own research.
> >>
> >> It was unjustified and all that, but I'm really not that bothered about
> >> the case.
>
> > So you think it is OK to attempt to murder cyclists?
>
> There you go with your defective English. Which bit of "unjustified" did
> you fail to understand?
>
> >> One might have expected yopu to be a bit more exercised about it.
> >> But clearly not.
>
> >> Have a problem with women, do you?
> >
> > Unlike you I am not sexist or racist or religionist or vehicleist, people are people.
>
> Unless they are women, when, as far as you are concerned, they've got it
> coming?

I assume you have evidence to support this claim.

JNugent

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 11:48:51 AM8/12/17
to
For what?

Getting it right when you got it wrong?

You'll be waiting a fair while.

>>>>>>> When this happened
>>>>>>> http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/video-mersey-cyclist-tells-horrific-6782055
>>>>>>> It was treated as a childish prank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A rope stretched right across Egrement Promenade?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you claiming it didn't happen?
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>> I am at least as aware as you of the regard in which cyclists are held
>>>> by the majority of people.
>>>
>>> And that is OK with you?
>>> If 'the majority of people' decided to exterminate all left handed redheads what should the authorities do?
>>> Supply names, addresses and weapons? Or protect the minority?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It must be sixty feet
>>>>>> wide between possible anchoring points and the rope would be very
>>>>>> visible at normal approach speeds.
>>>>
>>>>> At night?
>>>>
>>>> Don't cyclists use their low powered version of headlights at night, then?
>>>
>>> The vast majority do, thanks for your support.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or doesn't it matter whether or not they do use lights because they
>>>> stare at the ground below the front wheel in an effort to achieve and
>>>> maintain speed?
>>>
>>> The primary vehicle is question is pictured in the article.
>>
>> Translation?
>
> No translation should be necessary.

That's a truism.

Now, what about a translation?

>>> Anyone with a brain bigger than that of a fruit fly can see it is designed for an upright riding position.
>>
>> All bicycles are meant to be ridden with the cyclist looking ahead (and
>> occasionally around him). All cyclists are meant to keep a look out for
>> obstruction of all sorts (just like drivers are).

> So you agree your comment about cyclists riding with their heads down was pure bigotry and you are now moving the goalposts to avoid admitting you are wrong.

There are two things at play here:

(a) what should happen, and

(b) what does happen.

Cyclists *should* look where they're going. But sometimes - frequently,
in fact - they *don't*, especially when trying to break their personal
worst speed or similar.

Did you read what the lady in question said?

QUOTE:
“If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.

“I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can pick
up a lot of speed."
ENDQUOTE

She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the ground
below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the way.
Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an inch thick.

>>>>>> As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
>>>>>> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy.

>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/yd44mc9v>

>>>>> The picture shows a cycle lane.

>>>> And?

>>> You admit cyclists can use the prom in question.

>> They always could.

> Your words

...are used correctly and accurately:

> "As it happens, I distinctly remember that cycling was banned on the prom
> (yes, all the way from Seacombe to New Brighton) when I was a boy."
>
> Make your mind up

But yours aren't.

English isn't your strong subject, is it?

>> English isn't your strong subject, is it?

>>>>>> Did Merseyside Police ever manage to trace the alleged prankster?

>>>>> Do your own research.

>>>> It was unjustified and all that, but I'm really not that bothered about
>>>> the case.

>>> So you think it is OK to attempt to murder cyclists?

>> There you go with your defective English. Which bit of "unjustified" did
>> you fail to understand?

>>>> One might have expected yopu to be a bit more exercised about it.
>>>> But clearly not.

>>>> Have a problem with women, do you?

>>> Unlike you I am not sexist or racist or religionist or vehicleist, people are people.

>> Unless they are women, when, as far as you are concerned, they've got it
>> coming?

> I assume you have evidence to support this claim.

Only how you claim to be bothered about the case but don't seem
concerned enough to have researched the outcome. If it had been Bradders
you'd have been beavering away at the web trying to get up to date info.

I was surprised when you confirmed your lack of interest in the medical
outcome. There has to be an explanation of some sort.

TMS320

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 4:21:44 PM8/12/17
to
On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:

> QUOTE:
> “If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.
>
> “I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can pick
> up a lot of speed."
> ENDQUOTE

That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of speed".
Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100 bike with
knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you would disagree.

> She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the ground
> below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she had
her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed to
look for things connected to the road and disturbing the background, not
for something static floating above it. The visual system works mostly
about matching things to past experience so would take several seconds
to work out something so unfamiliar.

> But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the way.
> Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an inch thick.

A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver failing
to see something considerably bigger and which should have correlated to
something seen before. The back of a bus.

Mr Pounder Esquire

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 4:29:19 PM8/12/17
to
If nobody has told you that you are a boring cunt, please allow me to be the
first.


Simon Jester

unread,
Aug 12, 2017, 6:54:41 PM8/12/17
to
So to sum up.
When the victim is a cyclist it was the victims fault.
When the victim is a motorist it is someone else's fault.
Thank you for proving my point.

TMS320

unread,
Aug 14, 2017, 5:12:28 AM8/14/17
to
I have no interest in entertaining the likes of you. Why do you come to
this group if you don't like what's on offer?

Kerr-Mudd,John

unread,
Aug 14, 2017, 5:37:07 AM8/14/17
to
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:12:23 +0100, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/08/17 21:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

[actual real post about real stuff snipped]

>> If nobody has told you that you are a boring cunt, please allow me to
>> be the first.
>
> I have no interest in entertaining the likes of you. Why do you come to
> this group if you don't like what's on offer?

He's a sad moaner. Irrational outbursts and generalised hatred are his "bag".


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

JNugent

unread,
Aug 14, 2017, 8:49:55 AM8/14/17
to
On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
> On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>
>> QUOTE:
>> “If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.
>>
>> “I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you can
>> pick up a lot of speed."
>> ENDQUOTE
>
> That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of speed".
> Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100 bike with
> knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you would disagree.
>
>> She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the ground
>> below the front wheel. Only she knows which.
>
> Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she had
> her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).
>
> Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is accustomed to
> look for things connected to the road and disturbing the background, not
> for something static floating above it. The visual system works mostly
> about matching things to past experience so would take several seconds
> to work out something so unfamiliar.
>
>> But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by the way.
>> Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best part of an inch
>> thick.
>
> A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver failing
> to see something considerably bigger and which should have correlated to
> something seen before. The back of a bus.

And?

TMS320

unread,
Aug 14, 2017, 3:53:42 PM8/14/17
to
It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
somewhere between those two sizes.

Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

>> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
>> failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
>> correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.
>
> And?

You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

JNugent

unread,
Aug 14, 2017, 6:21:03 PM8/14/17
to
You've never actually been to that locality, have you?

You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along that
riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

> Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.

Irony!

>>> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
>>> failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
>>> correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.

>> And?

> You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.

What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
after downing half a bottle of Scotch?

What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Please be explicit.

TMS320

unread,
Aug 15, 2017, 5:05:14 AM8/15/17
to
Not necessary. I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

>> Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.
>
> Irony!
>
>>>> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
>>>> failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
>>>> correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.
>
>>> And?
>
>> You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
>> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.
>
> What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
> blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
> after downing half a bottle of Scotch?
>
> What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?

Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

> Please be explicit.

I have. Here it is again:

"Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than

JNugent

unread,
Aug 15, 2017, 10:00:16 AM8/15/17
to
No?

You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will never
see by philosophy or divination, can you?

> I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.

And what would that prove?

>>> Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.
>>
>> Irony!
>>
>>>>> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
>>>>> failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
>>>>> correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.
>>
>>>> And?
>>
>>> You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
>>> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.
>>
>> What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
>> blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the wind
>> after downing half a bottle of Scotch?
>>
>> What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?
>
> Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.

I hope you don't "think" that I endorse careless, reckless or drunken
driving.

>> Please be explicit.
>
> I have. Here it is again:
>
> "Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."

Childish.

You just cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious: there is simply no
connection between what that Range Rover's driver and what the injured
cyclist (or the idiot who stretched a vandalised lifebelt rope across
the prom) did.

TMS320

unread,
Aug 15, 2017, 3:16:46 PM8/15/17
to
Not necessary.

> You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will never
> see by philosophy or divination, can you?

I have not suggested a figure.

>> I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.
>
> And what would that prove?

To know that your suggestion is ridiculous.

>>>> Try having a bit of humility sometimes rather than digging deeper.
>>>
>>> Irony!
>>>
>>>>>> A few weeks ago someone posted a link about a Range Rover driver
>>>>>> failing to see something considerably bigger and which should have
>>>>>> correlated to something seen before. The back of a bus.
>>>
>>>>> And?
>>>
>>>> You're inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
>>>> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path.
>>>
>>> What difference would it have made if the Range Rover driver had been
>>> blind in one eye, half-blind in the other and three sheets to the
>>> wind after downing half a bottle of Scotch?
>>>
>>> What would it have to do with the woman on Egremont Prom?
>>
>> Directly, nothing. It has everything to do with your attitude.
>
> I hope you don't "think" that I endorse careless, reckless or drunken
> driving.
>
>>> Please be explicit.
>>
>> I have. Here it is again:
>>
>> "Your inability to see a connection shows less brain function than
>> someone that doesn't see a rope strung across a path."
>
> Childish.

You get what you deserve.

> You just cannot bring yourself to admit the obvious: there is simply no
> connection between what that Range Rover's driver and what the injured
> cyclist (or the idiot who stretched a vandalised lifebelt rope across
> the prom) did.

I haven't claimed a direct connection. Since I really must spell it out,
it was a counterpoint to your imaginary vision defects of cyclists. Have
*you* seen it yet? - you might need to spend more than several seconds
for it to reach your consciousness.

JNugent

unread,
Aug 16, 2017, 11:45:32 AM8/16/17
to
On 15/08/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:

> On 15/08/17 15:00, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/08/2017 10:05, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 14/08/17 23:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/2017 20:53, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 14/08/17 13:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/08/2017 21:21, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/08/17 16:48, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> QUOTE:
>>>>>>>> “If I was going any faster I could’ve been killed.
>>>>>>>> “I usually do go quite fast because it’s a straight run and you
>>>>>>>> can pick up a lot of speed."
>>>>>>>> ENDQUOTE
>
>>>>>>> That can mean anything. For some, 15mph can feel like a "lot of
>>>>>>> speed". Given that proms tend to be fairly level and it's a £100
>>>>>>> bike with knobbly tyres, it's more than likely. But I am sure you
>>>>>>> would disagree.

The actual speed isn't that important. It's what the rider is
concentrating on - and the goal they are setting themself (as opposed to
proceeding safely) which is the issue.

>>>>>>>> She might or might not have been intently concentrating on the
>>>>>>>> ground below the front wheel. Only she knows which.

>>>>>>> Perhaps the rope might not have caught her under the chin had she
>>>>>>> had her head down (as per your uninformed idea of riding positions).

>>>>>>> Besides, any road user (including drivers, even you) is
>>>>>>> accustomed to look for things connected to the road and
>>>>>>> disturbing the background, not for something static floating
>>>>>>> above it. The visual system works mostly about matching things to
>>>>>>> past experience so would take several seconds to work out
>>>>>>> something so unfamiliar.

>>>>>>>> But she failed to see the rope. This was a life-belt rope, by
>>>>>>>> the way. Not a wire and not a thin cord. It must be the best
>>>>>>>> part of an inch thick.

>>>>>>> A life belt rope an inch thick? Wow, folk are tough in those parts.

>>>>>> The Mersey is an estuarial river a mile wide at that location. The
>>>>>> currents are phenomenal. Parcel twine won't do.

>>>>> It is possible to manufacture more than capable rope with diameter
>>>>> somewhere between those two sizes.

>>>> You've never actually been to that locality, have you?
>>>> You have never seen one of the (many) lifebelt points ranged along
>>>> that riverfront, or the ropes attached to them?

>>> Not necessary.

>> No?

> Not necessary.

Is that:

(a) "Not necessary to know what I, TMS320, am talking about,
particularly since I have never seen a lifebelt point, complete with
rope and cannot be wrong", or

(b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
to a static point onshore"?

If it's the latter, you'd be better addressing your suggestions to the
Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.

>> You can measure the diameter of a rope you've never seen and will
>> never see by philosophy or divination, can you?

> I have not suggested a figure.

But you deny that sturdy ropes, the best part of an inch thick, are
necessary.

>>> I can look up tables for safe working loads for rope.
>>
>> And what would that prove?
>
> To know that your suggestion is ridiculous.

I have made no suggestions.
I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where they
are going.

That can have terrible results even for those with perfect vision.

> Have
> *you* seen it yet? - you might need to spend more than several seconds
> for it to reach your consciousness.

There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
and that of Citizen B.

Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys did.

TMS320

unread,
Aug 16, 2017, 6:55:08 PM8/16/17
to
On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:

> (b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
> to a static point onshore"?

I have not said that sturdy ropes are not necessary. If you stopped
twisting things (amongst other faults) your opinions might get more respect.


> I have made no suggestions.

An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.


> I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.

Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.


> I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
> progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where they
> are going.

Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
imply not looking.

> There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
> and that of Citizen B.
>
> Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys did.

Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.

JNugent

unread,
Aug 16, 2017, 7:44:13 PM8/16/17
to
On 16/08/2017 23:55, TMS320 wrote:

> On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:
>
>> (b) "Not necessary for sturdy ropes to be attached to the lifebelt and
>> to a static point onshore"?
>
> I have not said that sturdy ropes are not necessary. If you stopped
> twisting things (amongst other faults) your opinions might get more
> respect.
>
>
>> I have made no suggestions.
>
> An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.

For the thickness of the ropes attached to lifebelts?

The phrase was "the better part of an inch".

It was not a suggestion, it was an estimate based on direct observation.
>
>> I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.
>
> Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.

Except you, obviously.

>> I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
>> progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where
>> they are going.

> Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
> imply not looking.

But not looking is a guarantee of not seeing.

>> There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
>> and that of Citizen B.

>> Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys
>> did.

> Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.

"If".

TMS320

unread,
Aug 17, 2017, 12:37:41 PM8/17/17
to
On 17/08/17 00:44, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/08/2017 23:55, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 16/08/17 16:45, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> I have made no suggestions.
>>
>> An inch is not your suggestion? Well blow me down.
>
> For the thickness of the ropes attached to lifebelts?
>
> The phrase was "the better part of an inch".

So what? By implanting "an inch" in your own mind, your imagination made
it large enough that the victim should have seen it.

It is similar to the way you like to exaggerate cycling speed.

> It was not a suggestion, it was an estimate based on direct observation.
>>
>>> I have said nothing derogatory about the vision of cyclists.
>>
>> Oh? I am sure nobody is fooled.
>
> Except you, obviously.

Try to unravel the negatives and see what you end up with. Do you think
everybody else likes being insulted?

>>> I have said something about their concentration and prioritising of
>>> progress over safety, leading to their sometimes not looking where
>>> they are going.
>
>> Not looking will definitely result in not seeing. Not seeing does not
>> imply not looking.
>
> But not looking is a guarantee of not seeing.

Why repeat what I just said?

>>> There is no connection between the ill-advised behaviour of Citizen A
>>> and that of Citizen B.
>
>>> Citizen B cannot rely upon absolution because of what the bigger boys
>>> did.
>
>> Did citizen A have absolution? If yes, then definitely yes.
>
> "If".

It is about bicycle riders receiving worse treatment than motor vehicle
drivers for the same sins. It certainly happens here.
0 new messages