On 24/06/2019 22:14, Simon Jester wrote:


On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 19:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:51:58 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 17:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that
the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own
misfortune. It's no longer an issue.

You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements.
If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid?

The one bringing the action, of course. Who else?

As you pointed out, motor insurance claims are decided by the insurance companies out of court.
Now please answer the question. I believe "Knock for Knock" is the correct term.

Why did you not answer this?

Because it isn't a question and it isn't relevant to the instant case.

Once again you are the one who introduced the motor insurance analogy.
Now answer the question about 50:50 faukt,

Ah... I see where you are going wrong.

You are behaving as though both parties each had claims against the
other before the civil court.

But as you would know had you read and understood the reports, they
*didn't*.

Only the pedestrian victim has a claim before the court. Any losses or
injuries allegedly caused to the defendant cyclist are not relevant,
becase he hasn't made a claim.

This had already been explained to you, but you obviously didn't
understand. Do you see it now?

whether you do or not, I shan't be explaining it a third time.

The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount
for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would
otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own
losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks
as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence
the wilder estimates of £100,000.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder.

And?

Does that mean that no court ever gets it right?

Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is
"Yes".

It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case.

Prove that the court got it wrong.

The burden of proof is on you.

The burden to prove *your* proposition is on me?

You'd better go to the library and borrow a copy of "Debating for Dummies".

No witty response to that?

Did the plaintiff advertise for random strangers to commit perjury on
her behalf?

Did she bung the judge a few bob?

Or is your objection based on a belief that cyclists must be allowed to
do as they like and certainly not have to give way to a pedestrian?

Ahem...

QUOTE:
Why did you not answer this?
ENDQUOTE

Where did I say this?

Above.

My quotation of "Why did you not answer this?" was a verbatim quote of
your "point".

We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's
Prudential payments

And immediately lost the argument.

You lost it a good few lines back.

I assume this means you can supply evidence to support your claim about The Man From The Pru.

Google Groups is your friend.

Search for the strings "household insurance", "domestic insurance" and
"contents insurance" in uk.rec.cycling. That should get you started.

If you are trying to assert that no-one has ever claimed here that most,
if not all, cyclists are covered against the injuries or losses they
cause to others, you know you are fibbing.

You said
"We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments"
All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group.

Is that before or after I prove your unprovable case for you (as you
seem to think is my responsibility)?

Before, during or after it's up to you.
You said
"We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments"
All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group.

The evidence has been posted. All you need to do is sort through the
1,000+ posts I cited for you.

Let me know when you've read them all.