On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the ridiculous
>>> claim that the fairy-cyclist was moving parallel with the kerb
>>> when he moved out from the gutter across at least two lanes.
>>> Failed the geometry 101 section of the exam, did you?
>>
>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>>
>>>> What other option is there?
>>
>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>>
>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to
>> see.
>
> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?

No, the person that insists the cyclist veered onto the other side of
the road.

>> When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious
>> request, not a playground one/
>
> I think you already knew how much your opinion is valued,
> Pythagoras.

If you do a Duke of Edinburgh (or worse) don't try to claim you weren't
warned. It's a pity there isn't a larger penalty for someone that didn't
heed advice.

On 11/04/2022 10:56, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious request.
>
> Who was that?

It was me giving advice to Nugent. The perception that's necessary for
driving has failed him.

On 11/04/2022 08:42 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the ridiculous
>>>> claim that the fairy-cyclist was moving parallel with the kerb when
>>>> he moved out from the gutter across at least two lanes. Failed the
>>>> geometry 101 section of the exam, did you?
>
>>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>
>>>>> What other option is there?
>>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>
>>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to see.
>
>> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?
>
> No, the person that insists the fairy-cyclist veered onto the other side of
> the road.

As opposed to the person who insists that the fairy-cyclist proceeded
along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course, parallel
with the kerb?

>>> When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious
>>> request, not a playground one/
>
>> I think you already knew how much your opinion is valued, Pythagoras.
>
> If you do a Duke of Edinburgh (or worse) don't try to claim you weren't
> warned. It's a pity there isn't a larger penalty for someone that didn't
> heed advice.

That is spectacularly good gibberish, even for you?

Did you go though several drafts?

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:56:54 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
>
> > When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious request.
>
> Who was that?

Was it Pounder risen from the grave?

On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 08:42 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the
>>>>> ridiculous claim that the cyclist was moving parallel
>>>>> with the kerb when he moved out from the gutter across at
>>>>> least two lanes. Failed the geometry 101 section of the exam,
>>>>> did you?
>>
>>>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>>
>>>>>> What other option is there?
>>>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>>
>>>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to
>>>> see.
>>
>>> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?
>>
>> No, the person that insists the cyclist veered onto the other
>> side of the road.
>
> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
> parallel with the kerb?

Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.

>>>> When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious
>>>> request, not a playground one/
>>
>>> I think you already knew how much your opinion is valued,
>>> Pythagoras.
>>
>> If you do a Duke of Edinburgh (or worse) don't try to claim you
>> weren't warned. It's a pity there isn't a larger penalty for
>> someone that didn't heed advice.
>
> That is spectacularly good gibberish, even for you?

Try this version then.

If yous do a duke o' edinbgh (er worse) dun try ter claim yous weren't
warned. it's a pity thuz isn't a larger punelty fe someone dat didn't
'eed advice.

> Did you go though several drafts?

On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 08:42 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the
>>>>>> ridiculous claim that the cyclist was moving parallel
>>>>>> with the kerb when he moved out from the gutter across at
>>>>>> least two lanes. Failed the geometry 101 section of the exam,
>>>>>> did you?
>>>
>>>>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>>>
>>>>>>> What other option is there?
>>>>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>>>
>>>>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to
>>>>> see.
>>>
>>>> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?
>>>
>>> No, the person that insists the cyclist veered onto the other
>>>  side of the road.
>>
>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
>> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
>> parallel with the kerb?
>
> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.

*You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.

>>>>> When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious
>>>>> request, not a playground one/
>
>>>> I think you already knew how much your opinion is valued,
>>>> Pythagoras.
>
>>> If you do a Duke of Edinburgh (or worse) don't try to claim you
>>> weren't warned. It's a pity there isn't a larger penalty for
>>> someone that didn't heed advice.
>
>> That is spectacularly good gibberish, even for you?
>
> Try this version then.
>
> If yous do a duke o' edinbgh (er worse) dun try ter claim yous weren't
> warned. it's a pity thuz isn't a larger punelty fe someone dat didn't
> 'eed advice.
>
>> Did you go though several drafts?

What an idiot you are.

On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 08:42 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the
>>>>>>> ridiculous claim that the cyclist was moving parallel
>>>>>>> with the kerb when he moved out from the gutter across at
>>>>>>> least two lanes. Failed the geometry 101 section of the exam,
>>>>>>> did you?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What other option is there?
>>>>>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to
>>>>>> see.
>>>>
>>>>> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?
>>>>
>>>> No, the person that insists the cyclist veered onto the other
>>>>  side of the road.
>>>
>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
>>> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
>>> parallel with the kerb?
>>
>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>
> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.

Don't be stupid.

On 13/04/2022 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 08:42 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 10:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 09:54 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 19:25, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 06:18 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2022 17:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You blew yourself out of the water when you made the
>>>>>>>> ridiculous claim that the cyclist was moving parallel
>>>>>>>> with the kerb when he moved out from the gutter across at
>>>>>>>> least two lanes. Failed the geometry 101 section of the exam,
>>>>>>>> did you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just playground stuff. How unusual.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What other option is there?
>>>>>>>> For you? Not much, I suppose.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed there isn't for someone that only sees what he wants to
>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as insisting that two divergent lines are parallel?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the person that insists the cyclist veered onto the other
>>>>>  side of the road.
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
>>>> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
>>>> parallel with the kerb?
>>>
>>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>>
>> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.
>
> Don't be stupid.

You actually used the word "parallel". ;-)

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:30:45 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:56:54 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:54:47 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
> >
> > > When I said that you should give up driving, it was a serious request.
> >
> > Who was that?
> Was it Pounder risen from the grave?

That's because I heard that he had passed away from Guy Chapman.

On 13/04/2022 14:29, JNugent wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist
>>>>> proceeded along the nearside gutter and never deviated from
>>>>> that course, parallel with the kerb?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>>>
>>> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.
>>
>> Don't be stupid.
>
> You actually used the word "parallel". ;-)

Sigh. Were you born thick and stupid or has it developed from years of
practice?

Yes, I did use the word parallel. I have not stated that he (in your
words) "proceeded along the nearside gutter". And in my response to your
"kept moving right", my denial was that he *kept* moving right; not a
denial that he moved right.

For all your bloviating [*], you obviously have no comprehension that
the events took 6 seconds to play out; plenty of time [**] for three
clear stages.

1. Move out from the kerb
2. Approach ("parallel to the line")
3. Apply braking

The exact words I have previously used can be found in the thread. Here
they are again:-

On 08/04/2022 14:19, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 15:05, JNugent wrote:
>
> You have not noticed that the road is marked out with 4 lanes; that
> he was nowhere near to being on the wrong side of the road; that when
> he made and completed his move the sightline along the road directly
> ahead was completely clear...
>
>>>> The cyclist kept moving right...
>
> ...and that he did not "keep moving right" - he remained parallel to
> the line - and the distant perspective did not change.
>
> After moving right, about 2 seconds elapsed before there was any
> possibility of a collision. He braked from the moment the car
> interrupted his sightline.

[*] Yes, I know the Cambridge dictionary definition.
[**] Have you dropped your licence in the post yet?

On 14/04/2022 12:41 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
>>>>>> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
>>>>>> parallel with the kerb?
>
>>>>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>
>>>> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.
>
>>> Don't be stupid.
>
>> You actually used the word "parallel". ;-)
>
> Sigh. Were you born thick and stupid or has it developed from years of
> practice?

You're a very poor loser, aren't you? ;-)
>
> Yes, I did use the word parallel...

Oh... right...

....to describe a direction of travel that was not parallel with
anything. Not with the kerb. Not with the lane separator line. Not with
the centre line.

So *what* was he travelling parallel to? The gutter in Walthamstow? The
Prime Meridian line? Times Square's Broadway northbound kerb?

Because he was not travelling parallel to anything seen in the video.

> I have not stated that he (in your
> words) "proceeded along the nearside gutter".

Buy you did state that he did not change course, when he plainly did.

And "along the gutter" is mere poetic licence, given that you had
claimed that the fairy-cyclist had not changed course when he definitely
had changed course.

> And in my response to your
> "kept moving right", my denial was that he *kept* moving right; not a
> denial that he moved right.

He only stopped moving right (further from the nearside) at the end of
the incident. He was trying to pass the oncoming vehicle on its
*nearside* (!!!).

> For all your bloviating [*], you obviously have no comprehension that
> the events took 6 seconds to play out; plenty of time [**] for three
> clear stages.
>
> 1. Move out from the kerb

Ah... not parallel to the kerb, then?

> 2. Approach ("parallel to the line")

What "line"? He wasn't parallel to the kerb or any of the road's lane
markings.

> 3. Apply braking

Nonsense. He could and should have stopped in order to minimise the
danger, to himself rather more than to anyone else.

He didn't. He kept moving right trying to get around the oncoming
vehicle on its nearside.

> The exact words I have previously used can be found in the thread. Here
> they are again:-
>
> On 08/04/2022 14:19, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 15:05, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You have not noticed that the road is marked out with 4 lanes; that
>> he was nowhere near to being on the wrong side of the road; that when
>> he made and completed his move the sightline along the road directly
>> ahead was completely clear...
>>
>>>>> The cyclist kept moving right...
>>
>> ...and that he did not "keep moving right" - he remained parallel to
>> the line - and the distant perspective did not change.

Again... what "line"?

Not the kerb.

Not the lane separator markings.

Not the centre line.

>> After moving right, about 2 seconds elapsed before there was any
>> possibility of a collision. He braked from the moment the car
>> interrupted his sightline.

> [*] Yes, I know the Cambridge dictionary definition.
> [**] Have you dropped your licence in the post yet?

You get more ridiculous with every post.

The driver made a mistake. The fairy-cyclist amplified the effects of
that error rather than trying to minimise the danger to everyone.

And you defend the fairy-cyclist for that.

Unbelievable.

Or rather, it should be unbelievable, but hereabouts, it's become
something to be expected.

On 14/04/2022 12:59, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 12:41 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2022 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist
>>>>>>> proceeded along the nearside gutter and never deviated
>>>>>>> from that course, parallel with the kerb?
>>
>>>>>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>>
>>>>> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original
>>>>> course.
>>
>>>> Don't be stupid.
>>
>>> You actually used the word "parallel". ;-)
>>
>> Sigh. Were you born thick and stupid or has it developed from
>> years of practice?
>
> You're a very poor loser, aren't you? ;-)
>
> Unbelievable.

Yes, it is unbelievable how you wriggle and twist.

On 14/04/2022 01:49 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 14/04/2022 12:59, JNugent wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 12:41 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2022 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2022 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2022 01:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2022 11:59 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2022 01:06, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> As opposed to the person who insists that the cyclist proceeded
>>>>>>>> along the nearside gutter and never deviated from that course,
>>>>>>>> parallel with the kerb?
>
>>>>>>> Nobody has claimed that. As you know perfectly well.
>
>>>>>> *You* claimed that he did not deviate from his original course.
>
>>>>> Don't be stupid.
>
>>>> You actually used the word "parallel". ;-)
>
>>> Sigh. Were you born thick and stupid or has it developed from
>>> years of practice?
>
>> You're a very poor loser, aren't you? ;-)
>
>> Unbelievable.
>
> Yes, it is unbelievable how you wriggle and twist.

It is a wonder you have not learned to lose more graciously.

Especially given how frequently you seek to defend the indefensible,
such fairy-cyclists refusing to do the right thing and *stop* in order
to avoid and prevent danger.