On 28/09/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 02:04 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 28/09/2022 12:49, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/2022 23:14, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/iV9_i9MEnMg
>>
>>>>>> Note, this was recorded 8 years ago. A bike in front has
>>>>>> thrown a chain. Other debris lies nearby which is difficult
>>>>>> to identify. He rides over a part that is kicked up, gets
>>>>>> caught in the wheel and causes his fork to break.
>>
>>>>> So, as already said, a single vehicle accident, and it has
>>>>> now become clear that he was travelling too fast for the
>>>>> conditions - too close behind a cycle in poor mechanical
>>>>> condition. What better example could there be for mandatory
>>>>> cyclist and cycle testing?
>>
>>>> Testing couldn't possibly prevent something like that.
>>
>>>>>> It would be interesting to know from an expert what skill
>>>>>> (other than the ability to fly) was lacking. And, of
>>>>>> course, a description of the section of the driving test
>>>>>> that prepares drivers for an equivalent eventuality.
>>
>>>>> You *really* need to be told?
>>
>>>> I know the facts but I want to get it from you. You keep
>>>> whittering on about cyclist training. So go on, suggest some
>>>> safe to do exercises that would introduce useful new practical
>>>> skills. And point out the equivalent in the driving test (or
>>>> even, CBT if you want) syllabus.
>>
>>> This thread has highlighted some of the issues: following too
>>> closely; going too fast to avoid hazards; possible lack of
>>> observation.
>>
>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in
>> the driving test.
>>
>>> Whatever do you think might be done to address such issues?
>>
>> Do you seriously think the person in the clip was born yesterday?
>>
>>> If this had been a driving test in a car, the candidate would
>>> have failed. With cycling skills so poor, it cannot be right that
>>> cyclists are untested, and this thread has shown that to be the
>>> case.
>>
>> You seem to have a strange idea that the driving test is the be all
>> and end all. Novice drivers learn to drive after they have taken
>> the test. Any experienced driver taking the test, without being
>> refreshed in knowing what the examiner is looking for and driving
>> as they actually drive would fail.
>
> Often claimed.
>
> Never once proven.

"Proving" it would be a completely pointless exercise. Unless it was
used to produce a more relevant test.

In the days I took my test, most of it seemed to concentrate on driving
backwards (three point turn, reverse turn etc), rather than forwards; it
was required to wave an arm out of the window; one had to shuffle the
steering wheel (I don't know if that is still the required method) and
play with the gearstick when slowing down. All completely pointless.

The first time I drove at 60mph was after I had taken the test. Even
now, nobody has to show competence on a motorway to pass the test. Just
two examples.

When my children were learning to drive and I took them out, I was only
concerned about exposure to the real world; I left it to their
instructor to coach them for the test.

> It's right up there with "I drive better after a few pints and couple
> of chasers".
>
> Mind you, any test candidate who drove or rode (a motorcycle) as
> aggressively and as recklessly as that fairy-cyclist *would* fail.
> Not least because of failing to keep a safe distance from the vehicle
> in front.
>
> Go on... try to deny that...

But it wasn't a test situation... Once an examiner has ticked the
required number of boxes for a driver to get a full licence, there is no
system of taking it away for "driving in a manner that would fail a
test" and requiring retest, except through the courts.

Only flying has a system of peer review.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 22:15, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2022 16:08, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>>>>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in the
>>>>> driving test.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve pointed up several issues from one incident. The remedies are obvious.

>>> And you keep failing to suggest exercises that could be incorporated in
>>> a test.

>> If someone is having difficulties deciding what went wrong for the cyclist
>> concerned and also with formulating a modus to deal with the issues, they
>> might want to consider handling in their licence (UK)/license (foreign) and
>> throwing away any bicycles they might have.

> Since you are having so much difficulty formulating a modus to deal with
> the issues, are you going to hand in your licence?

I was speaking of you, since you keep asking the questions and fobbing off
to others the necessary insights without so much of a glimmer of thought
from yourself being applied to the solution.

Faulty cycles and total lack of training in the world of cycling is a
problem for them to solve. It doesn’t mean that the problems cannot even be
mentioned.

Or, perhaps, the cycling world takes the view that ‘every movement needs
it’s martyrs’ in its headlong rush for special treatment and taxpayer
funding - and having competent cyclists about would defeat that agenda.
Just look at the unseemly eagerness of the cycling media to report the
death of yet another untrained cyclist.

Shame on them.

--
Spike

On 29/09/2022 09:30, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 22:15, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2022 16:08, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>>>>>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in the
>>>>>> driving test.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve pointed up several issues from one incident. The remedies are obvious.
>
>>>> And you keep failing to suggest exercises that could be incorporated in
>>>> a test.
>
>>> If someone is having difficulties deciding what went wrong for the cyclist
>>> concerned and also with formulating a modus to deal with the issues, they
>>> might want to consider handling in their licence (UK)/license (foreign) and
>>> throwing away any bicycles they might have.
>
>> Since you are having so much difficulty formulating a modus to deal with
>> the issues, are you going to hand in your licence?
>
> I was speaking of you, since you keep asking the questions and fobbing off
> to others the necessary insights without so much of a glimmer of thought
> from yourself being applied to the solution.

I know what went wrong for the cyclist concerned. You decided there was
a much bigger back story. You are seriously deluded if you think this is
some form of "insight". If you think there is a solution, it is for you
to put in the thought and express it when asked. It is not up to me or
for anybody else to do your thinking.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 09:30, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2022 22:15, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2022 16:08, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>>>>>>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in the
>>>>>>> driving test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve pointed up several issues from one incident. The remedies are obvious.
>>
>>>>> And you keep failing to suggest exercises that could be incorporated in
>>>>> a test.
>>
>>>> If someone is having difficulties deciding what went wrong for the cyclist
>>>> concerned and also with formulating a modus to deal with the issues, they
>>>> might want to consider handling in their licence (UK)/license (foreign) and
>>>> throwing away any bicycles they might have.
>>
>>> Since you are having so much difficulty formulating a modus to deal with
>>> the issues, are you going to hand in your licence?
>>
>> I was speaking of you, since you keep asking the questions and fobbing off
>> to others the necessary insights without so much of a glimmer of thought
>> from yourself being applied to the solution.
>
> I know what went wrong for the cyclist concerned. You decided there was
> a much bigger back story. You are seriously deluded if you think this is
> some form of "insight". If you think there is a solution, it is for you
> to put in the thought and express it when asked. It is not up to me or
> for anybody else to do your thinking.

So you are saying that this was the only cyclist ever to be involved in a
single-vehicle crash, and no research into any similar incident and ways of
avoiding it are necessary.

That’s stupid. Cyclists are injured and killed in single-vehicle incidents.
Your comments are only those to be expected from a cyclist.

--
Spike

On 29/09/2022 12:29, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2022 22:15, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 16:08, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>>>>>>>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in the
>>>>>>>> driving test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ve pointed up several issues from one incident. The remedies are obvious.
>>>
>>>>>> And you keep failing to suggest exercises that could be incorporated in
>>>>>> a test.
>>>
>>>>> If someone is having difficulties deciding what went wrong for the cyclist
>>>>> concerned and also with formulating a modus to deal with the issues, they
>>>>> might want to consider handling in their licence (UK)/license (foreign) and
>>>>> throwing away any bicycles they might have.
>>>
>>>> Since you are having so much difficulty formulating a modus to deal with
>>>> the issues, are you going to hand in your licence?
>>>
>>> I was speaking of you, since you keep asking the questions and fobbing off
>>> to others the necessary insights without so much of a glimmer of thought
>>> from yourself being applied to the solution.
>>
>> I know what went wrong for the cyclist concerned. You decided there was
>> a much bigger back story. You are seriously deluded if you think this is
>> some form of "insight". If you think there is a solution, it is for you
>> to put in the thought and express it when asked. It is not up to me or
>> for anybody else to do your thinking.
>
> So you are saying that this was the only cyclist ever to be involved in a
> single-vehicle crash, and no research into any similar incident and ways of
> avoiding it are necessary.

I'm not. Only that the specifics of this one are bound to be very
unusual. I think that if cyclists want to play and any harm done remains
with them, leave them alone.
> That’s stupid. Cyclists are injured and killed in single-vehicle incidents.
> Your comments are only those to be expected from a cyclist.

So long as cyclists are harmed in crashes, then non-SVA ones are a much
greater concern.

But while we are at it, from ras40004 in 2020 -

deaths in cycle SVA - 22 out of 141 (16%)
deaths in motorcycle SVA - 80 out of 282 (28%)
deaths in car SVA - 264 out of 618 (42%)

It's hard to fathom out why such a low figure gives you a bee in your
bonnet.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 12:29, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2022 09:30, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/09/2022 22:15, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/09/2022 16:08, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As you keep whittering on about. So suggest some practical training
>>>>>>>>> exercises that would address this. And point out the equivalent in the
>>>>>>>>> driving test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’ve pointed up several issues from one incident. The remedies are obvious.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And you keep failing to suggest exercises that could be incorporated in
>>>>>>> a test.
>>>>
>>>>>> If someone is having difficulties deciding what went wrong for the cyclist
>>>>>> concerned and also with formulating a modus to deal with the issues, they
>>>>>> might want to consider handling in their licence (UK)/license (foreign) and
>>>>>> throwing away any bicycles they might have.
>>>>
>>>>> Since you are having so much difficulty formulating a modus to deal with
>>>>> the issues, are you going to hand in your licence?
>>>>
>>>> I was speaking of you, since you keep asking the questions and fobbing off
>>>> to others the necessary insights without so much of a glimmer of thought
>>>> from yourself being applied to the solution.
>>>
>>> I know what went wrong for the cyclist concerned. You decided there was
>>> a much bigger back story. You are seriously deluded if you think this is
>>> some form of "insight". If you think there is a solution, it is for you
>>> to put in the thought and express it when asked. It is not up to me or
>>> for anybody else to do your thinking.

>> So you are saying that this was the only cyclist ever to be involved in a
>> single-vehicle crash, and no research into any similar incident and ways of
>> avoiding it are necessary.

> I'm not. Only that the specifics of this one are bound to be very
> unusual.

“…bound to be…” = unfounded assertion

<rest of non-argument snipped>

> I think that if cyclists want to play and any harm done remains
> with them, leave them alone.

But they cost money to repair.

>> That’s stupid. Cyclists are injured and killed in single-vehicle incidents.
>> Your comments are only those to be expected from a cyclist.

> So long as cyclists are harmed in crashes, then non-SVA ones are a much
> greater concern.

But we are discussing a particular SVA

<irrelevances snipped>

> It's hard to fathom out why such a low figure gives you a bee in your
> bonnet.

It’s hard to see why you have such a blind spot in your view.

--
Spike

On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But we are discussing a particular SVA

The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and your
unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown themselves at the
scenery. You speculated (your word of the month) that testing "could"
have prevented this SVA. So when asked in detail about your magic test...

> <irrelevances snipped>

....you just throw a tantrum.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>
> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and your
> unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown themselves at the
> scenery. You speculated (your word of the month) that testing "could"
> have prevented this SVA. So when asked in detail about your magic test...
>
>> <irrelevances snipped>
>
> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>

If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics and stop
inventing topics that no-one else but you had raised.

The matter at hand is the single vehicle accident of a particular cyclist,
that has suggested what he was doing wrong given the circumstances and in
general, how they might be tackled - such as the cycle in front of him
shedding parts (a maintenance and testing issue) that due to the
circumstances in which the cyclist of interest had placed himself, led to
his downfall, and how the generality of that might be addressed.

HTH

--
Spike

On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>
>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and
>> your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown
>> themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word of the month)
>> that testing "could" have prevented this SVA. So when asked in
>> detail about your magic test...
>>
>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>
>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>
> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics and
> stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had raised.

These are your precise words -
"It speaks of a carelessness that proper training could have prevented."

You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts, dishonest
and a simpleton.

On 29/09/2022 08:58 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 28/09/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 02:04 pm, TMS320 wrote:

[in response to another poster:]
>>> You seem to have a strange idea that the driving test is the be all
>>> and end all. Novice drivers learn to drive after they have taken
>>> the test. Any experienced driver taking the test, without being
>>> refreshed in knowing what the examiner is looking for and driving
>>> as they actually drive would fail.
>
>> Often claimed.
>> Never once proven.
>
> "Proving" it would be a completely pointless exercise. Unless it was
> used to produce a more relevant test.

I'll amend your post.

"Proving" it would be a completely impossible exercise, and therefore a
pointless exercise.

> In the days I took my test, most of it seemed to concentrate on driving
> backwards (three point turn, reverse turn etc), rather than forwards; it
> was required to wave an arm out of the window; one had to shuffle the
> steering wheel (I don't know if that is still the required method) and
> play with the gearstick when slowing down. All completely pointless.

That's what you say.

[Mine too, by the way, just over fifty years ago.]

> The first time I drove at 60mph was after I had taken the test. Even
> now, nobody has to show competence on a motorway to pass the test. Just
> two examples.

Oh, bad luck. I had the nearby A10, A1 and A405 (near-motorway standard)
to practice on.
>
> When my children were learning to drive and I took them out, I was only
> concerned about exposure to the real world; I left it to their
> instructor to coach them for the test.
>
>> It's right up there with "I drive better after a few pints and couple
>> of chasers".
>>
>> Mind you, any test candidate who drove or rode (a motorcycle) as
>> aggressively and as recklessly as that fairy-cyclist *would* fail.
>> Not least because of failing to keep a safe distance from the vehicle
>> in front.
>>
>> Go on... try to deny that...
>
> But it wasn't a test situation...

What does that mean?

That he was under no duty to fairy-cycle with care and consideration?

Or even less likely, that he *was* fairy-cycling with due care and
attention and with due consideration for other road-users?

> Once an examiner has ticked the
> required number of boxes for a driver to get a full licence, there is no
> system of taking it away for "driving in a manner that would fail a
> test" and requiring retest, except through the courts.

The courts suspend licences every day for [inter alia] driving
carelessly or without due consideration for other road users.
>
> Only flying has a system of peer review.

???

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>
>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and
>>> your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown
>>> themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word of the month)
>>> that testing "could" have prevented this SVA. So when asked in
>>> detail about your magic test...
>>>
>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>
>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.

>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics and
>> stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had raised.

> These are your precise words -
> "It speaks of a carelessness that proper training could have prevented."

To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.

> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts, dishonest
> and a simpleton.

Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into your
deflection tactics. AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not
at all.

Better luck next time.

Note that your loony companion won’t even stray into matters that are
fundamental to the one-string fiddles that he plays. You do the opposite,
and can’t shift the topic fast enough.

What is it with you cyclists, apart from a total horror of facing reality?

--
Spike

On 30/09/2022 00:50, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/09/2022 08:58 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:

>
>>
>> When my children were learning to drive and I took them out, I was
>> only concerned about exposure to the real world; I left it to their
>> instructor to coach them for the test.
>>
>>> It's right up there with "I drive better after a few pints and
>>> couple of chasers".

Don't be silly.

>>> Mind you, any test candidate who drove or rode (a motorcycle) as
>>> aggressively and as recklessly as that fairy-cyclist *would*
>>> fail. Not least because of failing to keep a safe distance from
>>> the vehicle in front.
>>>
>>> Go on... try to deny that...
>>
>> But it wasn't a test situation...
>
> What does that mean?

How is "it wasn't a test" is so difficult to understand? Are you still
trying to claim that after passing the test, drivers habitually drive as
though taking a test?

Or did you not know that breaking a speed limit is against the law?

> That he was under no duty to fairy-cycle with care and
> consideration?

Let those that are without sin cast the first stone.

> Or even less likely, that he *was* fairy-cycling with due care and
> attention and with due consideration for other road-users?
>
>> Once an examiner has ticked the required number of boxes for a
>> driver to get a full licence, there is no system of taking it away
>> for "driving in a manner that would fail a test" and requiring
>> retest, except through the courts.
>
> The courts suspend licences every day for [inter alia] driving
> carelessly or without due consideration for other road users.

Yes, but frequency is not the issue in this context. The point you
seemed to have missed is that only a court can do it.

On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>
>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and
>>>> your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown
>>>> themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word of the
>>>> month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA. So when
>>>> asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>
>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>
>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>
>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics and
>>> stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had raised.
>
>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness that
>> proper training could have prevented."
>
> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.

Good, you haven't forgotten

>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>> dishonest and a simpleton.
>
> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into your
> deflection tactics.

Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be performed in
a test is a problem for you.

> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.

Provide something to discuss.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>>
>>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident and
>>>>> your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have thrown
>>>>> themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word of the
>>>>> month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA. So when
>>>>> asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>>
>>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>
>>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics and
>>>> stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had raised.
>>
>>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness that
>>> proper training could have prevented."
>>
>> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.
>
> Good, you haven't forgotten
>
>>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>>> dishonest and a simpleton.

>> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into your
>> deflection tactics.

> Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be performed in
> a test is a problem for you.

It’s for the pedal-cycling world to deal with the appalling lack of
training for cyclists.

>> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.

> Provide something to discuss.

I did, but you chose to wander off instead.

--
Spike

On 03/10/2022 08:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 30/09/2022 00:50, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/09/2022 08:58 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> When my children were learning to drive and I took them out, I was
>>> only concerned about exposure to the real world; I left it to their
>>> instructor to coach them for the test.

>>>> It's right up there with "I drive better after a few pints and
>>>> couple of chasers".
>
> Don't be silly.

People used to make both claims:

(a) that you only learn to drive after passing a test, and

(b) they drove (or motor-cycled) better after a few drinks (enough to
mean a breath-test fail).

Both claims were and are rubbish. You, astoundingly, still make the
first one (see above). Perhaps you also believe that you drive better
after half-a-dozen pints.

>>>> Mind you, any test candidate who drove or rode (a motorcycle) as
>>>> aggressively and as recklessly as that fairy-cyclist *would* fail.
>>>> Not least because of failing to keep a safe distance from the
>>>> vehicle in front.
>
>>>> Go on... try to deny that...
>
>>> But it wasn't a test situation...
>
>> What does that mean?
> That he was under no duty to fairy-cycle with care and consideration?
>
> How is "it wasn't a test" is so difficult to understand? Are you still
> trying to claim that after passing the test, drivers habitually drive as
> though taking a test?

The point is that such behaviour would not have been acceptable in a
driving test, irrespective of whether a test was taking place. IOW, it
was unacceptable.
>
> Or did you not know that breaking a speed limit is against the law?

Relevance?
>
> Let those that are without sin cast the first stone.

Indeed.

Fairy-cyclists, being the most egregious breachers of road traffic law,
are in no position to criticise any other class of road-user.
>
>> Or even less likely, that he *was* fairy-cycling with due care and
>> attention and with due consideration for other road-users?
>
>>> Once an examiner has ticked the required number of boxes for a driver
>>> to get a full licence, there is no system of taking it away for
>>> "driving in a manner that would fail a test" and requiring retest,
>>> except through the courts.
>
>> The courts suspend licences every day for [inter alia] driving
>> carelessly or without due consideration for other road users.
>
> Yes, but frequency is not the issue in this context. The point you
> seemed to have missed is that only a court can do it.

You seem to think that people can do as they like without fear of
consequences. You aren't the only one, of course. It goes some way to
explaining the observable behaviour of fairy-cyclists.

On 03/10/2022 21:33, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident
>>>>>> and your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have
>>>>>> thrown themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word
>>>>>> of the month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA.
>>>>>> So when asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>>
>>>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics
>>>>> and stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had
>>>>> raised.
>>>
>>>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness
>>>> that proper training could have prevented."
>>>
>>> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.
>>
>> Good, you haven't forgotten
>>
>>>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>>>> dishonest and a simpleton.
>
>>> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into
>>> your deflection tactics.
>
>> Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be
>> performed in a test is a problem for you.
>
> It’s for the pedal-cycling world to deal with the appalling lack of
> training for cyclists.

Cyclists to train cyclists? Whingers (ie, you) would complain about that.

>>> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.
>
>> Provide something to discuss.
>
> I did, but you chose to wander off instead.

Let's see now. You said "...carelessness that proper training could have
prevented"

So what were you expecting to discuss?

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/10/2022 21:33, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident
>>>>>>> and your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have
>>>>>>> thrown themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word
>>>>>>> of the month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA.
>>>>>>> So when asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics
>>>>>> and stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had
>>>>>> raised.
>>>>
>>>>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness
>>>>> that proper training could have prevented."
>>>>
>>>> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.
>>>
>>> Good, you haven't forgotten
>>>
>>>>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>>>>> dishonest and a simpleton.
>>
>>>> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into
>>>> your deflection tactics.
>>
>>> Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be
>>> performed in a test is a problem for you.

>> It’s for the pedal-cycling world to deal with the appalling lack of
>> training for cyclists.

> Cyclists to train cyclists? Whingers (ie, you) would complain about that.

You’re reading things that weren’t said or even implied.

>>>> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.
>>
>>> Provide something to discuss.
>>
>> I did, but you chose to wander off instead.

> Let's see now. You said "...carelessness that proper training could have
> prevented"

> So what were you expecting to discuss?
You can’t see?

--
Spike

On 05/10/2022 19:46, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/10/2022 21:33, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident
>>>>>>>> and your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have
>>>>>>>> thrown themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word
>>>>>>>> of the month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA.
>>>>>>>> So when asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics
>>>>>>> and stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had
>>>>>>> raised.
>>>>>
>>>>>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness
>>>>>> that proper training could have prevented."
>>>>>
>>>>> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.
>>>>
>>>> Good, you haven't forgotten
>>>>
>>>>>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>>>>>> dishonest and a simpleton.
>>>
>>>>> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into
>>>>> your deflection tactics.
>>>
>>>> Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be
>>>> performed in a test is a problem for you.
>
>>> It’s for the pedal-cycling world to deal with the appalling lack of
>>> training for cyclists.
>
>> Cyclists to train cyclists? Whingers (ie, you) would complain about that.
>
> You’re reading things that weren’t said or even implied.

Shrug

>>>>> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.
>>>
>>>> Provide something to discuss.
>>>
>>> I did, but you chose to wander off instead.
>
>> Let's see now. You said "...carelessness that proper training could have
>> prevented"
>
>> So what were you expecting to discuss?
>
> You can’t see?

Perhaps... something to do with training?

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/10/2022 19:46, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2022 21:33, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30/09/2022 09:44, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 22:04, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/09/2022 16:01, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we are discussing a particular SVA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The discussion is about testing, initiated by this incident
>>>>>>>>> and your unsupported belief that most dead cyclists have
>>>>>>>>> thrown themselves at the scenery. You speculated (your word
>>>>>>>>> of the month) that testing "could" have prevented this SVA.
>>>>>>>>> So when asked in detail about your magic test...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <irrelevances snipped>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...you just throw a tantrum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss issues, stop using deflection tactics
>>>>>>>> and stop inventing topics that no-one else but you had
>>>>>>>> raised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are your precise words - "It speaks of a carelessness
>>>>>>> that proper training could have prevented."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To which the only possible answer is “Yes”.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good, you haven't forgotten
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are either dishonest or a simpleton. On second thoughts,
>>>>>>> dishonest and a simpleton.
>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is that I won’t play your game of being drawn into
>>>>>> your deflection tactics.
>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, asking you to suggest some exercises that could be
>>>>> performed in a test is a problem for you.
>>
>>>> It’s for the pedal-cycling world to deal with the appalling lack of
>>>> training for cyclists.
>>
>>> Cyclists to train cyclists? Whingers (ie, you) would complain about that.
>>
>> You’re reading things that weren’t said or even implied.
>
> Shrug
>
>>>>>> AFAIAC you either discuss the matter mentioned or not at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Provide something to discuss.
>>>>
>>>> I did, but you chose to wander off instead.
>>
>>> Let's see now. You said "...carelessness that proper training could have
>>> prevented"
>>
>>> So what were you expecting to discuss?
>>
>> You can’t see?
>
> Perhaps... something to do with training?

🙄

--
Spike

On 04/10/2022 10:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 03/10/2022 08:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 30/09/2022 00:50, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2022 08:58 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> When my children were learning to drive and I took them out, I
>>>> was only concerned about exposure to the real world; I left it
>>>> to their instructor to coach them for the test.
>
>>>>> It's right up there with "I drive better after a few pints
>>>>> and couple of chasers".
>>
>> Don't be silly.
>
> People used to make both claims:
>
> (a) that you only learn to drive after passing a test, and
>
> (b) they drove (or motor-cycled) better after a few drinks (enough to
> mean a breath-test fail).
>
> Both claims were and are rubbish. You, astoundingly, still make the
> first one (see above).

If you really believe a) is "rubbish", you should tell your insurance
company they are wrong and you are not paying enough.

> Perhaps you also believe that you drive better after half-a-dozen
> pints.

I have never believed this. Besides, whether b) is true or false has no
connection whatsoever on whether a) is true or false. A nonsensical
comparison.

>>>>> Mind you, any test candidate who drove or rode (a motorcycle)
>>>>> as aggressively and as recklessly as that fairy-cyclist
>>>>> *would* fail. Not least because of failing to keep a safe
>>>>> distance from the vehicle in front.
>>
>>>>> Go on... try to deny that...
>>
>>>> But it wasn't a test situation...
>>
>>> What does that mean?
>> That he was under no duty to fairy-cycle with care and
>> consideration?
>>
>> How is "it wasn't a test" is so difficult to understand? Are you
>> still trying to claim that after passing the test, drivers
>> habitually drive as though taking a test?
>
> The point is that such behaviour would not have been acceptable in a
> driving test, irrespective of whether a test was taking place. IOW,
> it was unacceptable.

OK. The rider would not have passed a test. Had he been taking a test.
Shrug.

The original claim made was that passing a test "could" have prevented
a situation, such as this, from occuring at a time after passing the test.

Some people, still alive, have never taken a UK driving test but somehow
muddled into competence. Essentially, anybody that believes a test,
whether it is driving or a wished for cycling test, would have any
bearing on behaviour or reaction 1, 10... 50 years later is living in
fantasy.

>> Or did you not know that breaking a speed limit is against the
>> law?
>
> Relevance?

Oh, it has every relevance in support of the statement that drivers do
not drive after a test as though they were taking a test. Speeding is
just one of many habits that can be highlighted: candidates would not
even be allowed to start a test if they turned up drunk.

>> Let those that are without sin cast the first stone.
>
> Indeed.

Do you claim you have never broken a speed limit? You do not.

Then stop throwing stones.