|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:32:52 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote: Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: JNugent wrote: [] Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? Snowflake. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. You know nothing. But we know that you're a chisel-wielding menace to society. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:32:52 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: JNugent wrote: [] Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? Snowflake. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. You know nothing. But we know that you're a chisel-wielding menace to society. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 18/06/2019 19:58, JNugent wrote:
If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The required action is to avoid. This is done successfully many thousands of times a day by drivers and cyclists and the moment is forgotten a few seconds later. There may be times when stopping is a necessary action. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. One is always free to think they 'deserve it'. Please don't try to claim you never do. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 18. 6. 2019 21:59, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 18/06/2019 19:44, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:50:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 18/06/2019 14:06, Modesty wrote: A pedestrian gets hits by a cyclist. The case goes to court and the judge decides that because the pedestrian was using her phone and not looking-out when she stepped into the road to cross, she must accept 50% of the blame for a resulting collision with the cyclist. The judge also accepts that the cyclist is a "calm and reasonable road user" and at the time of the crash was not cycling aggressively nor recklessly. Still, however, the judge rules that the cyclist must pay the pedestrian thousands of pounds in compensation (the case will return to court at a later date for the amount of compensation to be decided). How can that be right? If the pedestrian was 50% at fault for the accident how can the cyclist's fault be the greater? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a4169716.html The principle of apportioning blame in civil proceedings - especially those arising out of traffic accidents - is not a mystery. Where the nominal victim is 50% to blame, the damages (for pain, stress, suffering, loss of earnings or whatever) from the other party can be reduced by 50%. So had they otherwise been, say, £10,000, he/she would get £5,000. Of course, the same thing can apply the other way round - if there is a loss to be quantified. In a motor vehicle collision, relevant insurance companies usually (though not always) manage to come to some agreement over these matters without the need for court action, unless there has been some substantial injury. It has been established by other recent case(s) that a driver or cyclist must do their best to avoid a pedestrian, even a pedestrian who has walked out into the carriageway without taking full account of the traffic. There is no available excuse of "It was MY right of way". As I understand it, the cyclist in the instant case might well have been able to stop in time, but decided to continue in the hope that he would be able to avoid the pedestrian. We've heard of that sort of case before. An emergency stop (which is what the law actually expects us to do in this sort of circumstance) is what the brakes are for. So if the cyclist sues the pedestrian the cyclist will be awarded the same compensation and both can walk away empty handed after wasting the court's time. "...If....". It depends on lots of answers we don't know about the reported case. Seriously, you walk in to the road with your head down on your phone and get hit by a cyclist... ...who could have avoided the collision by stopping but didn't out of a fit of pique and after all, it was "his right of way"... Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Why, in modern society, is it always someone else's fault? Some things are your fault. Some things aren't. Deciding which is which is the job of the court. Then there is the question of why she was not wearing a helmet. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Why, in modern society, is it always someone else's fault? If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? It is a free country. He is allowed to fee anyone he likes. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 19. 6. 2019 19:32, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: JNugent wrote: On 18/06/2019 19:44, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:50:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 18/06/2019 14:06, Modesty wrote: A pedestrian gets hits by a cyclist. The case goes to court and the judge decides that because the pedestrian was using her phone and not looking-out when she stepped into the road to cross, she must accept 50% of the blame for a resulting collision with the cyclist. The judge also accepts that the cyclist is a "calm and reasonable road user" and at the time of the crash was not cycling aggressively nor recklessly. Still, however, the judge rules that the cyclist must pay the pedestrian thousands of pounds in compensation (the case will return to court at a later date for the amount of compensation to be decided). How can that be right? If the pedestrian was 50% at fault for the accident how can the cyclist's fault be the greater? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...a-teacher-hit- by-cyclist-as-she-crossed-road-on-her-phone-a4169716.html The principle of apportioning blame in civil proceedings - especially those arising out of traffic accidents - is not a mystery. Where the nominal victim is 50% to blame, the damages (for pain, stress, suffering, loss of earnings or whatever) from the other party can be reduced by 50%. So had they otherwise been, say, £10,000, he/she would get £5,000. Of course, the same thing can apply the other way round - if there is a loss to be quantified. In a motor vehicle collision, relevant insurance companies usually (though not always) manage to come to some agreement over these matters without the need for court action, unless there has been some substantial injury. It has been established by other recent case(s) that a driver or cyclist must do their best to avoid a pedestrian, even a pedestrian who has walked out into the carriageway without taking full account of the traffic. There is no available excuse of "It was MY right of way". As I understand it, the cyclist in the instant case might well have been able to stop in time, but decided to continue in the hope that he would be able to avoid the pedestrian. We've heard of that sort of case before. An emergency stop (which is what the law actually expects us to do in this sort of circumstance) is what the brakes are for. So if the cyclist sues the pedestrian the cyclist will be awarded the same compensation and both can walk away empty handed after wasting the court's time. "...If....". It depends on lots of answers we don't know about the reported case. Seriously, you walk in to the road with your head down on your phone and get hit by a cyclist... ...who could have avoided the collision by stopping but didn't out of a fit of pique and after all, it was "his right of way"... Grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Why, in modern society, is it always someone else's fault? Some things are your fault. Some things aren't. Deciding which is which is the job of the court. Then there is the question of why she was not wearing a helmet. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Why, in modern society, is it always someone else's fault? If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? Snowflake. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. ANd that is a real great compliment, coming from YOU. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 19. 6. 2019 22:43, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:32:52 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: JNugent wrote: [] Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? Snowflake. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. You know nothing. But we know that you're a chisel-wielding menace to society. Yes. Chisel smeared with vomit and turd. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 19. 6. 2019 23:05, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:32:52 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:59:20 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote: JNugent wrote: [] Mr Nugent Why are you feeding this pillock? Snowflake. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. You know nothing. But we know that you're a chisel-wielding menace to society. You are a poverty cycling pillock, and that is all you ever will be. Thanks greatly for the compliment. Now ejaculate to me the further honour of walking vomit. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 21/06/2019 09:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/06/2019 19:58, JNugent wrote: If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The required action is to avoid. This is done successfully many thousands of times a day by drivers and cyclists and the moment is forgotten a few seconds later. There may be times when stopping is a necessary action. ....and this was one of them. He didn't even have the excuse of having no brakes. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. One is always free to think they 'deserve it'. Please don't try to claim you never do. Some videos from YouTube and other places, many of them linked from this very NG, have indeed provided a sense of satisfaction arising out of seeing "the biter bit". But I would *never* do less than take every possible step to avoid a collision, whether with another motor vehicle, a cyclist or a pedestrian. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 21/06/2019 20:30, JNugent wrote:
On 21/06/2019 09:37, TMS320 wrote: On 18/06/2019 19:58, JNugent wrote: If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The required action is to avoid. This is done successfully many thousands of times a day by drivers and cyclists and the moment is forgotten a few seconds later. There may be times when stopping is a necessary action. ...and this was one of them. He didn't even have the excuse of having no brakes. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. One is always free to think they 'deserve it'. Please don't try to claim you never do. Some videos from YouTube and other places, many of them linked from this very NG, have indeed provided a sense of satisfaction arising out of seeing "the biter bit". Large numbers from car drivers. But I would *never* do less than take every possible step to avoid a collision, whether with another motor vehicle, a cyclist or a pedestrian. Intention might be there but sometimes the steps taken can be the wrong steps. Youtube also reveals many of these. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
It's half my fault but your fault is the greater
On 22/06/2019 12:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/06/2019 20:30, JNugent wrote: On 21/06/2019 09:37, TMS320 wrote: On 18/06/2019 19:58, JNugent wrote: If it happens, just *stop*. Forget your ego for a few seconds. The required action is to avoid. This is done successfully many thousands of times a day by drivers and cyclists and the moment is forgotten a few seconds later. There may be times when stopping is a necessary action. ...and this was one of them. He didn't even have the excuse of having no brakes. The fact that the victim didn't look before stepping forward does not mean that you are entitled to mow her down. But you have made it clear again and again that that is what you really want to do. One is always free to think they 'deserve it'. Please don't try to claim you never do. Some videos from YouTube and other places, many of them linked from this very NG, have indeed provided a sense of satisfaction arising out of seeing "the biter bit". Large numbers from car drivers. But I would *never* do less than take every possible step to avoid a collision, whether with another motor vehicle, a cyclist or a pedestrian. Intention might be there but sometimes the steps taken can be the wrong steps. Youtube also reveals many of these. In order to avoid taking the "wrong steps" it is necessary to take the steps least likely to lead to a collision. That will always be abn application of the brakes rather than an application of an air-horn to try to frighten the victim out of the way. And that cyclist has now learned that, even if some others refuse to. Looks like he's going to have to make a claim on his domestic insurance, so what's the problem? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
over half of car/cycle accidents are the cyclist's fault | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 2 | July 18th 12 07:57 AM |
Whose Fault? | Nuxx Bar[_3_] | UK | 72 | July 18th 11 08:04 AM |
Its all our fault | Tony Raven | UK | 49 | December 20th 05 04:07 PM |
It's your fault | Maggie | General | 22 | November 16th 04 06:41 PM |
it's all your fault! | David Martin | UK | 78 | April 22nd 04 12:12 AM |