On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:28:01 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 21:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:20:28 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
> >
> >> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas.
> >
> > He was barking mad like most car fanatics are.
> >
> > This was him when he used to troll urc before his sudden death.
> >
> > https://www.safespeed.org.uk/images/paul/paul03m.jpg
> But I will give him the credit (contrast to the chairman of the Hat and
> Glove Wearer's Driving Club, with 50 years of inexperience) of not
> having a completely closed mind.

The last time I heard Smith was in '06 when he was interviewed by fellow petrolhead Mike Dicken on TalkSPORT slagging off safety cameras unopposed. Soon after, Smith was dead at age 52 after his third heart attack and Dicken was killed after he crashed his car into a tree when speeding. It's what they would have wanted.

On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>
>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>
>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>
>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>
> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.

Rather colourful language there, old bean.

I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
here knows that).

That small error amended above.

The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >
> >>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >
> >>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>>>> presuming they could still stand...
> >
> >>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >
> >>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
> >
> > No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>
> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
> here knows that).
>
> That small error amended above.
>
> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?

So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
Please put the words of my post back where you found them.

On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>>>
>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>>>
>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>>>
>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>>>
>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>>
>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
>> here knows that).
>>
>> That small error amended above.
>>
>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
>
> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.

:-)

Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?

And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:50:32 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:28:01 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
> > On 24/04/2022 21:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:20:28 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
> > >
> > >> The late Paul Smith had some strange ideas.
> > >
> > > He was barking mad like most car fanatics are.
> > >
> > > This was him when he used to troll urc before his sudden death.
> > >
> > > https://www.safespeed.org.uk/images/paul/paul03m.jpg
> > But I will give him the credit (contrast to the chairman of the Hat and
> > Glove Wearer's Driving Club, with 50 years of inexperience) of not
> > having a completely closed mind.
> The last time I heard Smith was in '06 when he was interviewed by fellow petrolhead Mike DickIn on TalkSPORT slagging off safety cameras unopposed. Soon after, Smith was dead at age 52 after his third heart attack and DickIn was killed after he crashed his car into a tree when speeding. It's what they would have wanted.

QUOTE:
Talksport phone-in host Mike Dickin, known to listeners as "The King", has died in a road accident in Cornwall.

The presenter, who was in his 60s, was involved in a six car pile-up on the A30 on Monday. He was airlifted to hospital but was pronounced dead.

Dickin started his career at BBC Radio Oxford in the 1970s, where he was the first presenter on the air.

He also broadcast on Radio 4 and LBC, and won an award for his coverage of the Lockerbie disaster in 1988.

The presenter, who broadcast from his home studio in Bodmin Moor, was known for his passionate, outspoken views.

Listeners dubbed him Britain's angriest man, but he was also known as "The King" because of his supposed resemblance to Henry VIII.

Dickin hosted weekend overnight phone-ins on Talksport and was last heard on the station last weekend.

Colleague James Whale paid tribute to the broadcaster, calling him "the original grumpy old man".

"Radio will never be the same again," continued the presenter, who will pay tribute to Dickin in his programme on Thursday night. END

RIP

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
> >>>
> >>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >>>
> >>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
> >>>
> >>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
> >> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
> >>
> >> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
> >> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
> >> here knows that).
> >>
> >> That small error amended above.
> >>
> >> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
> >> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
> >
> > So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
> > Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
> :-)
>
> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
>
> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?

I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.

On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>>>>
>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
>>>> here knows that).
>>>>
>>>> That small error amended above.
>>>>
>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
>>>
>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
>> :-)
>>
>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
>>
>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
>
> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.

Whatever...

> The presenter, who was in his 60s, was involved in a six car pile-up on the A30 on Monday. He was airlifted to hospital but was pronounced dead.

At least it was nothing to do with their "killer" safety cameras, eh?

On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
> >>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
> >>>>
> >>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
> >>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
> >>>> here knows that).
> >>>>
> >>>> That small error amended above.
> >>>>
> >>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
> >>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
> >>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
> >> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
> >> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
> >>
> >> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
> >
> > I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.
> Whatever...

I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.

On 26/04/2022 09:34 am, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>
>>>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>
>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>
>>>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.

>>>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>>>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
>>>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
>>>>>> here knows that).
>>>>>> That small error amended above.
>>>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
>>>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
>
>>>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
>>>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.

>>>> :-)
>
>>>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
>>>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
>>>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
>>>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
>
>>> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.

>> Whatever...

> I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.

Let's make a start...

Are your ridiculous (and pre-existing) claims about fairy-cyclists
"paying for the roads" (!!!), together with your astounding claim to the
effect that motor vehicle owners and users don't, going to be dropped?

[Yes]

[No]

[delete as appropriate]

That'd only be a start, mind.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:57:29 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The presenter, who was in his 60s, was involved in a six car pile-up on the A30 on Monday. He was airlifted to hospital but was pronounced dead.
> At least it was nothing to do with their "killer" safety cameras, eh?

Anti-speed camera campaigner Paul Smith died last night aged 52. The founder of the website SafeSpeed.org.uk is believed to have suffered a stroke or heart attack at his home in Fife, Scotland. He had suffered two earlier heart attacks including one this summer.14 Dec 2007. RIP.

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 14:38:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 09:34 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >>>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >>>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >
> >>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
> >
> >>>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
>
> >>>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
> >>>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
> >>>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
> >>>>>> here knows that).
> >>>>>> That small error amended above.
> >>>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
> >>>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
> >
> >>>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
> >>>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
>
> >>>> :-)
> >
> >>>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
> >>>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
> >>>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
> >>>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
> >
> >>> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.
>
> >> Whatever...
>
> > I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.
fairy-cyclists

And immediately lost the argument.

On 26/04/2022 06:08 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 14:38:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 09:34 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>>>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>
>>>>>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
>
>>>>>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>>>>>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
>>>>>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
>>>>>>>> here knows that).
>>>>>>>> That small error amended above.
>>>>>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
>>>>>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
>
>>>>>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
>>>>>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
>
>>>>>> :-)
>
>>>>>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
>>>>>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
>>>>>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
>>>>>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
>
>>>>> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.
>
>>>> Whatever...
>>
>>> I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.
>
> fairy-cyclists
>
> And immediately lost the argument.

What was the point in snipping my response?

Totally childish tactic.

>

QUOTE: In his cycling skills manual Cyclecraft – which forms the foundation of Bikeability, the UK's national standard for cycle training – John Franklin talks about two main riding positions: the primary riding position and the secondary riding position.

He defines the primary riding position as being "in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel", and the secondary riding position as being "about 1 metre (3 feet) to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but not closer than 0.5 metre (1.5 feet) to the edge of any road."

Riding in the primary position, also known as 'taking the lane', is all about safety. John Franklin says that this is where you can best see and be seen, and are able to maintain the straightest and fastest course.

"The primary riding position should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely," he says.

'Close pass' initiatives by police around the country promote safety by telling motorists to leave at least 1.5m of space when overtaking a cyclist, but you've doubtless experienced many coming by far closer than that. Riding in the primary position discourages this by forcing traffic behind you either to stay put or to overtake only when the opposite/adjacent lane is free.. ENDS

SIMPLE ENOUGH.

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 18:59:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 06:08 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 14:38:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 26/04/2022 09:34 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
> >
> >>>>>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
> >
> >>>>>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
> >>>>>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
> >>>>>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
> >>>>>>>> here knows that).
> >>>>>>>> That small error amended above.
> >>>>>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
> >>>>>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
> >
> >>>>>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
> >>>>>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
> >
> >>>>>> :-)
> >
> >>>>>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
> >>>>>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
> >>>>>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
> >>>>>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
> >
> >>>>> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.
> >
> >>>> Whatever...
> >>
> >>> I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.
> >
> > fairy-cyclists
> >
> > And immediately lost the argument.
> What was the point in snipping my response?
>
> Totally childish tactic.
>
> >

Because you have no point until you stop using childish name calling.

On 25/04/2022 11:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2022 09:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 24/04/2022 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger,
>>>>>>> STOP...
>>>>
>>>>>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a
>>>>>> collision. Stopping might be involved.
>>>>
>>>>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a
>>>>> collision (where paths would intersect) would not be
>>>>> "involved" as a means of avoiding such a collision.
>>>>
>>>> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point
>>>> of intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from
>>>> one. The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for
>>>> one or both parties to arrange things such that they cross the
>>>> intersection with a time separation.
>>>
>>> That's gibberish.
>>
>> You mean you find it a difficult concept to grasp.
>
> "Thoughts" expressed in gibberish usually are.

Then you must have an explanation of how junctions work where users
don't produce intersecting paths.

>>>>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another
>>>>> (oncoming) car?
>>>
>>>>> I certainly wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to
>>>> do with methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over
>>>> a give way line. So what are you talking about? Assuming you
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a
>>> give way line".
>>
>> *Your* words are quite clear - "veering into the path of another
>> (oncoming) car".
>
> Quite so. That very *obviously* is a description of the actions of
> the *cyclist*.

If there had been any "veering" the lights in the distance would have
panned a long way across the frame.

>>> The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading
>>> across to the other side of the road (ie, the correct lane for
>>> him, had he only done it correctly, which he didn't).
>>
>> So you're still on about Jeremy Vine's video. Yet you still
>> haven't looked at it properly.
>
> I have seen it.

At best, a very cursory look and a mind made up.

>>> There is no doubt that the driver made a terrible error. But the
>>> cyclist made it worse.
>>
> No comment?

Yes... There was no collision.

>>>>> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with
>>>>> your strange belief that a cyclist should do it.
>>
>>> *Anyone* should stop in such a situation where that is the
>>> easiest and surest way to avoid a collision. And it was the
>>> easiest way to avoid a collision in this case. But the cyclists
>>> had the red mist descending and an attack of the screaming and
>>> shouting disease and was determined *not* to stop on some sort of
>>> misguided "point of honour" and possibly to teach the driver a
>>> lesson.
>>
>> Turn the sound off then. Or alternatively, imagine it is a driver
>> using the horn.
>
> And pretend that things that didn't happen did happen?
>
> Or that things that did happen didn't happen?
>
> I'm now getting a better appreciation of your "thoughts" on the
> matter.

Then you are suggesting that if a cyclist makes a noise, it is an
Entirely Different thing to a driver making a noise.

<...>
>>>
>>> I didn't say the cyclist was seeking a collision. I said that he
>>> didn't do enough to avoid one. He need not have come so near to a
>>> collision.
>>
>> You have definitely used the phrase "seeking a collision".
>
> cycling into the path of another vehicle - quite unnecessarily
> at that - is not unfairly described as "seeking a collision". The
> only realistic conclusion which can be drawn is that the
> cyclist was so incensed and so stricken by the red-mist and the
> screaming and shouting disease that he was seeking to stop the car by
> riding into its path (leaving the driver no option but to brake
> rather than accelerate over on to the "correct" side of the road (for
> the driver).

A diatribe of emotion and a total absence of objectivity.

> More gibberish.

Well done for admitting it.

On 26/04/2022 18:03, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> [In the] manual Cyclecraft – which forms the foundation of Bikeability, the UK's national standard for cycle training...

Cyclists are TRAINED???

What in? Kamikaze tactics?

--
Spike

The first port of call on matters like this is usually The Highway Code (link is external) (remember that not all of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements), but it says nothing about how cyclists should position themselves within a lane apart from when dealing with junctions and parked vehicles.

Despite what some people would have you believe – spoiler alert: not everything written on social media is true – there's no rule that says cyclists should always be on the left-hand side of the lane (we'll talk about the related subject of riding two abreast in a separate feature, by the way).

One cause of confusion could be Rule 160, aimed at all riders and drivers rather than cyclists in particular: "Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road."

This refers to the left hand-side of the road, though, not to the left hand-side of the lane. Plus, there's a distinction in The Highway Code between 'must/must not' instructions which are legal requirements, and 'should/should not' and 'do/do not' rules which are advisory. Rule 160 is clearly among the latter.

On 27/04/2022 09:37, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> The first port of call on matters like this is usually The Highway Code (link is external) (remember that not all of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements), but it says nothing about how cyclists should position themselves within a lane apart from when dealing with junctions and parked vehicles.

> One cause of confusion could be Rule 160, aimed at all riders and drivers rather than cyclists in particular: "Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road."

> This refers to the left hand-side of the road, though, not to the left hand-side of the lane. Plus, there's a distinction in The Highway Code between 'must/must not' instructions which are legal requirements, and 'should/should not' and 'do/do not' rules which are advisory. Rule 160 is clearly among the latter.

Did your Mr Arsehole write that?

--
Spike

One cause of confusion could be Rule 160, aimed at all riders and drivers rather than cyclists in particular: "Once moving you should keep to the left, unless road signs or markings indicate otherwise. The exceptions are when you want to overtake, turn right or pass parked vehicles or pedestrians in the road."

This refers to the left hand-side of the road, though, not to the left hand-side of the lane. Plus, there's a distinction in The Highway Code between 'must/must not' instructions which are legal requirements, and 'should/should not' and 'do/do not' rules which are advisory. Rule 160 is clearly among the latter.

One other thing The Highway Code has to say about cyclists' lane positioning is Rule 67: you should "leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path".

You need to be at least a door's width out when passing parked vehicles, and 1.5 metres is often recommended.

On 26/04/2022 07:03 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: In his fairy-cycling skills manual Fairycyclecraft – which forms the foundation of Fairy-Bikeability, the UK's national standard for fairy-cycle training – John Franklin talks about two main riding positions: the primary riding position and the secondary riding position.
>
> He defines the primary riding position as being "in the centre of the leftmost moving traffic lane for the direction in which you wish to travel", and the secondary riding position as being "about 1 metre (3 feet) to the left of the moving traffic lane if the road is wide, but not closer than 0.5 metre (1.5 feet) to the edge of any road."
>
> Riding in the primary position, also known as 'taking the lane', is all about safety. John Franklin says that this is where you can best see and be seen, and are able to maintain the straightest and fastest course.
>
> "The primary riding position should be your normal riding position when you can keep up with traffic, when you need to emphasise your presence to traffic ahead, or when you need to prevent following drivers from passing you unsafely," he says.
>
> 'Close pass' initiatives by police around the country promote safety by telling motorists to leave at least 1.5m of space when overtaking a fairy-cyclist, but you've doubtless experienced many coming by far closer than that. Riding in the primary position discourages this by forcing traffic behind you either to stay put or to overtake only when the opposite/adjacent lane is free. ENDS
>
> SIMPLE ENOUGH.

You had already proven yourself to be that, many times.

On 26/04/2022 07:38 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 18:59:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 06:08 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 14:38:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 09:34 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 17:54:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 04:22 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 13:56:49 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 01:42 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 12:55:51 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 11:55 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 25 April 2022 at 11:50:38 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/04/2022 03:59 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 19 April 2022 at 15:40:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 02:19 pm, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 12:58, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger, STOP. Don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurtle onward seeking a confrontation.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another important rule: when danger is approaching you, get out of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. Don't stand your ground and later complain from your hospital bed.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think of the compo such a victim could p*ss up the wall - always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presuming they could still stand...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stupidity of some people is unfathomable. They seem to "think" it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a matter of principle not to avoid danger and that they must never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either lose face or a few seconds off their point to point time.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what you are saying is [that when] a [fairy-cyclist] rides on the footway it is pedestrians [sic] responsibility to get out of the way.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No I did not. You edited my post for your own perverted reasons.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rather colourful language there, old bean.
>>>>>>>>>> I accept that I ought to have used the square brackets (the same ones
>>>>>>>>>> which are used with the editing note "sic" in English, not that everyone
>>>>>>>>>> here knows that).
>>>>>>>>>> That small error amended above.
>>>>>>>>>> The substantive point was responded to and it's a shame that you
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't think of a riposte to that, isn't it?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you admit I did not say what you claimed I said. I look forward to reading your unconditional apology.
>>>>>>>>> Please put the words of my post back where you found them.
>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you still claiming that the owners and drivers of motor vehicles
>>>>>>>> don't make substantial (and unnecessarily large and excessive)
>>>>>>>> contributions to the cost of providing and maintaining roads?
>>>>>>>> And even more comically, that fairy-cyclists do pay for roads?
>>>
>>>>>>> I stopped reading Fairy Stories (such as The Bible) many years ago. Clearly you still believe in the Road Tax fairy.
>>>
>>>>>> Whatever...
>>>>
>>>>> I assume this means you will drop the whole childish 'fairy cyclist' thing. If you want to be taken seriously that is.
>>>
>>> fairy-cyclists
>>>
>>> And immediately lost the argument.
>> What was the point in snipping my response?
>>
>> Totally childish tactic.
>>
>>>
>
> Because you have no point until you stop using childish name calling.

When are you going to stop telling lies (of various sorts)?

On 26/04/2022 11:45 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 11:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/04/2022 09:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2022 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:48 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 13:58, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> An important rule is: when you are approaching danger,
>>>>>>>> STOP...
>
>>>>>>> The important rule is to take steps necessary to avoid a
>>>>>>> collision. Stopping might be involved.
>
>>>>>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a
>>>>>> collision (where paths would intersect) would not be
>>>>>> "involved" as a means of avoiding such a collision.
>
>>>>> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point
>>>>> of intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from
>>>>> one. The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for
>>>>> one or both parties to arrange things such that they cross the
>>>>> intersection with a time separation.
>>
>>>> That's gibberish.
>
>>> You mean you find it a difficult concept to grasp.
>
>> "Thoughts" expressed in gibberish usually are.
>
> Then you must have an explanation of how junctions work where users
> don't produce intersecting paths.

Please give an example of a road junction or intersection (other than
one which is grade separated) where paths do not intersect at-grade. For
the sake of clarity, let us not dwell on those few junctions where a
left-turning lane is provided, allowing left-turning traffic to merge
with traffic passing from its right to its left. Such turning traffic
still has to give way.
>
>>>>>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another
>>>>>> (oncoming) car?
>
>>>>>> I certainly wouldn't.
>
>>>>> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to
>>>>> do with methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over
>>>>> a give way line. So what are you talking about? Assuming you
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a
>>>> give way line".
>
>>> *Your* words are quite clear - "veering into the path of another
>>> (oncoming) car".
>
>> Quite so. That very *obviously* is a description of the actions of
>> the *cyclist*.
>
> If there had been any "veering" the lights in the distance would have
> panned a long way across the frame.

Gibberish. More of it.

>>>> The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading
>>>> across to the other side of the road (ie, the correct lane for
>>>> him, had he only done it correctly, which he didn't).
>
>>> So you're still on about Jeremy Vine's video. Yet you still
>>> haven't looked at it properly.
>
>> I have seen it.
>
> At best, a very cursory look and a mind made up.

My mind is made up.

>>>> There is no doubt that the driver made a terrible error. But the
>>>> cyclist made it worse.
>
>> No comment?
>
> Yes... There was no collision.
>
>>>>>> But perhaps you would. It would at least be consistent with
>>>>>> your strange belief that a cyclist should do it.
>
>>>> *Anyone* should stop in such a situation where that is the
>>>> easiest and surest way to avoid a collision. And it was the
>>>> easiest way to avoid a collision in this case. But the cyclists
>>>> had the red mist descending and an attack of the screaming and
>>>> shouting disease and was determined *not* to stop on some sort of
>>>> misguided "point of honour" and possibly to teach the driver a
>>>> lesson.
>
>>> Turn the sound off then. Or alternatively, imagine it is a driver
>>> using the horn.
>>
>> And pretend that things that didn't happen did happen?
>
>> Or that things that did happen didn't happen?

We know what happened. Both road-users made egregious errors. They were
each lucky that it didn't result in a colleision.
>
>> I'm now getting a better appreciation of your "thoughts" on the
>> matter.
>
> Then you are suggesting that if a cyclist makes a noise, it is an
> Entirely Different thing to a driver making a noise.
>
> <...>
>
>>>> I didn't say the cyclist was seeking a collision. I said that he
>>>> didn't do enough to avoid one. He need not have come so near to a
>>>> collision.
>
>>> You have definitely used the phrase "seeking a collision".

I don't think so. He was seeking a confrontation. But feel free to
accurately quote it.

>> cycling into the path of another vehicle - quite unnecessarily
>> at that - is not unfairly described as "seeking a collision". The
>> only realistic conclusion which can be drawn is that the
>> cyclist was so incensed and so stricken by the red-mist and the
>> screaming and shouting disease that he was seeking to stop the car by
>> riding into its path (leaving the driver no option but to brake
>> rather than accelerate over on to the "correct" side of the road (for
>> the driver).
>
> A diatribe of emotion and a total absence of objectivity.
>
>> More gibberish.
>
> Well done for admitting it.

Which playground are you in today? The big one or your usual one?

'Close pass' initiatives by police around the country promote safety by telling motorists to leave at least 1.5m of space when overtaking a cyclist, but you've doubtless experienced many coming by far closer than that. Riding in the primary position discourages this by forcing traffic behind you either to stay put or to overtake only when the opposite/adjacent lane is free..

It's often best to take the lane before passing a side road joining from the left, for example – after looking over your shoulder to make sure that it's safe, of course, and signalling if you to need to communicate your intention to other road users.

AMEN TO THAT.

On 29/04/2022 10:23 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 27/04/2022 12:33, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 11:45 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 25/04/2022 11:48, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2022 09:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2022 20:36, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/04/2022 08:20 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> ... but steering straight at the projected point of a collision
>>>>>>>> (where paths would intersect) would not be "involved" as a means
>>>>>>>> of avoiding such a collision.
>
>>>>>>> Paths always intersect and, while steering can change the point
>>>>>>> of intsection, it is not possible to steer into or away from one.
>>>>>>> The only possible method for avoiding a collision is for one or
>>>>>>> both parties to arrange things
>>>>>>> such that they cross the intersection with a time
>>>>>>> separation.
>
>>>>>> That's gibberish.
>
>>>>> You mean you find it a difficult concept to grasp.
>
>>>> "Thoughts" expressed in gibberish usually are.
>
>>> Then you must have an explanation of how junctions work where
>>> users don't produce intersecting paths.
>
>> Please give an example of a road junction or intersection (other
>> than one which is grade separated) where paths do not intersect
>> at-grade.
>
> *You* have been wittering on at length about a road user that should not
> (in your opinion) steered an intersecting path. You seem to have
> forgotten. I left it to you to explain how junctions are negotiated
> without creating intersecting paths.

Are you talking about the creation and layout of such a junction?

Or the practical *use* of it in order not to create (or at least, to
minimise) conflicts?

Conflict on otherwise intersecting paths is minimised by at least one
(perhaps more than one) of the vehicles involved *stopping*, whether at
a Give Way line (the best solution) or somewhere else (not totally
optimal, but sometimes the best that can be achieved).

>>>>>>>> Would you do it in a car, veering into the path of another
>>>>>>>> (oncoming) car?
>
>>>>>>>> I certainly wouldn't.
>
>>>>>>> "Veering" into the path of an oncoming vehicle has nothing to do
>>>>>>> with methods of dealing with a vehicle poking its nose over a
>>>>>>> give way line. So what are you talking about? Assuming you know.
>
>>>>>> We are *not* talking about a "vehicle poking its nose over a
>>>>>>  give way line".
>
>>>>> *Your* words are quite clear - "veering into the path of another
>>>>> (oncoming) car".
>
>>>> Quite so. That very *obviously* is a description of the actions of
>>>> the *cyclist*.
>
>>> If there had been any "veering" the lights in the distance would have
>>> panned a long way across the frame.
>
>> Gibberish. More of it.
>
> Thank you for finally realising there was no "veering".

I have given you no reason to "think" that.

The fairy-cyclist's red-mist "He must not get out of that junction
without a fight" behaviour was boorish, childish and irrational. But
then, it was a fairy-cyclist doing it.
>
>>>>>> The vehicle was well *beyond* the give way line and was heading
>>>>>> across to the other side of the road (ie, the
>>>>>> correct lane for him, had he only done it correctly, which
>>>>>> he didn't).
>
>>>>> So you're still on about Jeremy Vine's video. Yet you still haven't
>>>>> looked at it properly.
>
>>>> I have seen it.
>
>>> At best, a very cursory look and a mind made up.
>>
>> My mind is made up.
>
> Quite so.
>
>>>>> You have definitely used the phrase "seeking a collision".
>>
>> I don't think so. He was seeking a confrontation. But feel free to
>> accurately quote it.
>
> On 20/04/2022 12:11, JNugent wrote:

>> Don't hurtle onward seeking a confrontation and/or a collision.

That was the expression of a basic rule for all road-users in all
circumstances.

Have another go. Re-read it. Don't despair... you might get better at
this English lark in time. What was your first language, out of interest?

>>>> cycling into the path of another vehicle - quite unnecessarily
>>>> at that - is not unfairly described as "seeking a collision". The
>>>>  only realistic conclusion which can be drawn is that the
>>>> cyclist was so incensed and so stricken by the red-mist and the
>>>> screaming and shouting disease that he was seeking to stop the
>>>> car by riding into its path (leaving the driver no option but to
>>>> brake rather than accelerate over on to the "correct" side of the
>>>> road (for the driver).
>
>>> A diatribe of emotion and a total absence of objectivity.
>
>>>> More gibberish.
>
>>> Well done for admitting it.
>
>> Which playground are you in today? The big one or your usual one?
>
> The one not far from your bridge.

It's a pity that you and certain others find it impossible to grasp the
fact that all road-users are responsible for safety on the highways,
isn't it?

You are definitely an "I have rights, but no responsibilities" man.