Who is liable for the damage?

On 24 Oct, 11:26, LSMike wrote:
On 24 Oct, 10:54, NM wrote:

On 24 Oct, 10:27, LSMike wrote:

That's my reading of the collision description too. *Failure to drive
according to normal expected standards.

How can the cyclist be going too fast? *That area is all relatively
flat - is the OP suggesting that the cyclist was exceeding either the
speed limit, or what other motor traffic was doing there?

No it isn't.

So the cyclist wasn't exceeding the speed limit, and wasn't going
significantly faster than the rest of the traffic.

Why don't you put up a link to google maps, showing the direction and
travel of both the car and the cyclist, and the exact location of the
collision?



The clipless pedals are a red herring too - they do not have any
bearing on the collision, IMO.

Hardly surprising really, cyclists in city centres are usually seen
with their feet firmly clipped to the pedals, obviously they have no
intentions of stopping at inconvenient little items like traffic
lights or pedestrian crossings seeing as they can't readily put a foot
on the floor.

Ooh, look at the bias. *You clearly have no understanding of how
clipless pedals work, why they are a good thing, or why your comments
are an uninformed red herring. *As soon as I hear a driver talking
about cyclists jumping red lights, I get bored by the bigotry and
ignorance. *They always ignore the elephant in the room, that of all
the drivers that go through red traffic lights. *1 in 10 car drivers
and 1 in 5 bus drivers as found by the RAC. *As with many cyclists,
I'd be happy for all red light jumpers to be fined and/or given points
as appropriate. *Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by
suggesting it's only those dastardly cyclists who jump red lights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF5cc...?v=vuVk4NkeeLM

Yes you are right, all types of vehicles 'jump' the lights however
it's only cyclists that regularly totally ignore the lights which is
what I should have said. The RAC etc mean shave a second or so off the
stop/start time.

If clips are so safe and sensible how come this clown had to be helped
out of his?

On 24 Oct, 11:43, NM wrote:

I think you should read the heading of the initial posting before you
decide who's side I'm on, I have put the facts as I understood them
and have had to go into the smallest of inconsequential details thus
making it appear that there are inconsistancies in the narrative, the
only inconsistancies are those of interpretation. A couple of
objective replies and more than a few blatent attempts to 'prove' the
cyclist could not be at fault in any way. My own view is that the
cyclist and the driver were both at fault. Thank you all for your
input.

Why not clear up any possible interpretation errors by being specific
about the collision location? Link it on google maps.

NM wrote:

If clips are so safe and sensible how come this clown had to be helped
out of his?

Because he was a bit shaken after being hit by some clown in a car?

"Paul - xxx" writes:

So yuo keep adding bits to the story .. it's now not a main road it's a
shopping area ... are you simply trying to pick a fight?

It's taken you this far into the thread to realise? Anyone who can
infer that a cyclist is the embodiment of evil simply because they're
clipped into their pedals is either not acting in good faith or is
merely barking mad, and that sentiment was expressed right back in the
first post.


-dan

NM wrote:

Hardly surprising really, cyclists in city centres are usually seen
with their feet firmly clipped to the pedals, obviously they have no
intentions of stopping at inconvenient little items like traffic
lights or pedestrian crossings seeing as they can't readily put a foot
on the floor.

Don't be absurd. You can as readily unclip from pedals as you can lift a
foot from a pedal. You don't know what you're talking about.

In the meantime your 'friend' is at fault for driving without proper
care and wants to find a way to wiggle out of responsibility for causing
an accident by blaming the person she knocked off, and you want to cause
trouble by crossposting your description of it to two newsgroups.

Daniele

wrote:

"Paul - xxx" writes:

So yuo keep adding bits to the story .. it's now not a main road
it's a shopping area ... are you simply trying to pick a fight?

It's taken you this far into the thread to realise?

No.

Anyone who can
infer that a cyclist is the embodiment of evil simply because they're
clipped into their pedals is either not acting in good faith or is
merely barking mad, and that sentiment was expressed right back in the
first post.

Hence why I tried to engage rather than ignore, so others who don't
have much clue don't get waylaid into such thoughts.

I wasn't a fan of URCM, but now I post there and think I might just not
post here as often ... not that I post anywhere often these days ..

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On 24 Oct, 08:09, NM wrote:
My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of Doug's
road, whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter a
side road, She was entering from the main road by turning right, after
allowed the crossing pedestrians right of way she then pulled forward
to enter the street, at the last moment she spotted a cyclist, who had
right of way being on the main road but going in her opinion far too
fast for the amount of traffic and the general congestion of the
area.

She stopped immediatly and as her forward speed was insignificant at
this moment there was still sufficient room for the cyclist to pass
along the main road in front of her however the cyclist made the
assumption she was going to continue across his path so anchored up
and lost control, he came to a stop just as he collided with the car.

The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those stupid
toe grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on the floor, he
ended up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her car still wearing
the cycle with resultant damage to the car's panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

Could I offer your friend some free legal advice? Feel free to pass
it on to her:

1. Get your ****ing eyes tested
2. Try looking left and right *before* pulling out of a side road
3. Don't try to blame others for your **** driving.

HTH.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:23:55 -0700, BrianW wrote:


My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of Doug's
road, whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter a side
road, She was entering from the main road by turning right, after
allowed the crossing pedestrians right of way she then pulled forward
to enter the street, at the last moment she spotted a cyclist, who had
right of way being on the main road but going in her opinion far too
fast for the amount of traffic and the general congestion of the area.

Could I offer your friend some free legal advice? Feel free to pass it
on to her:

1. Get your ****ing eyes tested
2. Try looking left and right *before* pulling out of a side road
She was turning into a side road from the main road... see 1.

3. Don't try to blame others for your **** driving.
Agree completely.

BW

Paul - xxx wrote:

NM wrote:

Valid assumption, providing the road is straight, gradient free, not
heavily cambered and clement conditions. His trajectory was a result
of his initial change of course to avoid what he obviously thought was
going to be a Tbone. Had he continued there would not have been an
issue, had he been cycling with a modicum of common sense there also
would not have been an issue.

You never mentioned any change in course before, you said he simply
anchored up and lost control, now he changes direction

Actually, he did. He said (first post) that the cyclist's forward path was
unobstructed. Not in those precise words; I have simplified it for you.

"Paul - xxx" wrote in news:7kfp0cF38uulmU1
@mid.individual.net:

NM wrote:

On 24 Oct, 08:23, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
NM wrote:
My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of
Doug's
road, whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter
a
side road, She was entering from the main road by turning right,
after allowed the crossing pedestrians right of way she then
pulled forward to enter the street, at the last moment she
spotted a cyclist, who had right of way being on the main road
but going in her opinion far too fast for the amount of traffic
and the general congestion of the area.

So she didn't see the cyclist until the last moment but could still
determine their speed? *How does that work then?

I think you mean she saw him, misjudged his speed and so pulled
out,
not realising how fast cycles can travel, causing the collision.

She stopped immediatly and as her forward speed was insignificant
at this moment there was still sufficient room for the cyclist to
pass along the main road in front of her however the cyclist made
the assumption she was going to continue across his path so
anchored up and lost control, he came to a stop just as he
collided with the car.

The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those
stupid toe grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on
the floor, he ended up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her
car still wearing the cycle with resultant damage to the car's
panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault
and of course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

I'd say tough **** for her, she should have better awareness and
not
pull out into traffic. *Whatever happens afterwards, it's her that
pulled out wrongly, you can't expect others to compensate for her
****wittery.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

Perhaps the ****wittery was the wearing of tight toe clips and going
silly fast in a heavily congested town centre, IMO one should expect
traffic in such circumstances and not fondly imagine one is competing
in a leg of the Tour de France. Besides she did not pull in front of
him, he just thought she was going to and reacted accordingly.

If she didn't pull in front of him, how did he land on the bonet? Did
he defy physics and shoot off to the side, perhaps?

Try reading what NM wrote. The answer is there.