"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> > My reading of Simon's original post is that she has only been charged but not yet found guilty.
> > The police might yet be found to be wrong. I don't want to excuse the lady if she genuinely was
> > at fault but Peter Biggs wrote
>
> Frantic semantics. Simon's post said: "None of us has the full facts. It might have been too dark
> to see a cyclist without lights. You can't blame someone for not being equipped with an infra-red
> night vision system." I submit that the plod on the scene would not have pressed charges had there
> plainly been no case to answer, as plod are very averse to filling in
forms
> unless they have to.
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
> I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
> about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
> wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
>
>
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
>
I'm wounded to the quick! Those weren't Simon's words of wisdom, they were mine - unless I'm guilty
of unwitting plagiarism (I'm often accused of unwitting witlessness
)
I agree that the evidence presented here points towards her guilt. My comments have been aimed at
the stupidity of some of the anti-driver quips.