View Single Post
  #19  
Old June 22nd 19, 04:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On 22/06/2019 13:31, JNugent wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:21, Bod wrote:
On 22/06/2019 12:13, JNugent wrote:


The court decided that the cyclist and the victim were each a
nominal 50% to blame for the collion. She for stepping out without
looking, he for proceeding to collide with her without even trying
to stop.
Â*
Â* He did apparently try to avoid her. Are you saying that he
deliberately rode into her?


Note that Nugent is doing his usual slippery routine by using the word
word 'stop'. As though stop and avoid are the same thing.


The court decided that avoidance (ie, changing direction, without
braking and without stopping) was indeed not an acceptable thing for the
cyclist to do. He should have braked, very hard, to a halt if necessary.
The court decided that so there's no point to your wriggle.

Braking (hard) is what I do in my car in similar circumstances. Isn't it
what *you* would do?


In a car, it is the most obvious; if a lane is 8ft wide and a car is 7ft
wide, there is clearly no alternative. When two pedestrians encounter
each other on perpendicular tracks, one does not stay on track, stop and
wait for the other; one will invariably track behind the other. A
bicycle is somewhere between the two, depending on available space.

A driver does not encounter dozy pedestrians like cyclists routinely do.
I can't remember the last time I was driving when I had to make a sudden
manouevre to avoid a pedestrian; probably while still relatively
inexperienced and my action was the catalyst. A cyclist will have far
more experience of avoiding than a non-cyclist can imagine.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home