|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
"Mrcheerful" wrote
On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Bret Cahill wrote: Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- It's British English[1], this is a British group that costs more that $5 is a rip off. We don't do dollars - see above [1] Although mostly inaccurate - modern vehicles usually have door mirrors, not wing mirrors. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 12:46, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. I wonder why the car driver would have thought that the mirror was damaged and that the cyclist should pay following the incident, if the damage was not caused by the cyclist? Seems unlikely (to me and most sane people) that the damage was caused by accidental hand impact during an overtake. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 23/07/2014 12:46, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. I wonder why the car driver would have thought that the mirror was damaged and that the cyclist should pay following the incident, if the damage was not caused by the cyclist? Perhaps the driver thought incorrectly. Seems unlikely (to me and most sane people) that the damage was caused by accidental hand impact during an overtake. Alleged damage. At least you have changed to "accidental". |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 15:34, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 23/07/2014 12:46, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. I wonder why the car driver would have thought that the mirror was damaged and that the cyclist should pay following the incident, if the damage was not caused by the cyclist? Perhaps the driver thought incorrectly. Seems unlikely (to me and most sane people) that the damage was caused by accidental hand impact during an overtake. Alleged damage. At least you have changed to "accidental". No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message On 23/07/2014 15:34, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 23/07/2014 12:46, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. I wonder why the car driver would have thought that the mirror was damaged and that the cyclist should pay following the incident, if the damage was not caused by the cyclist? Perhaps the driver thought incorrectly. Seems unlikely (to me and most sane people) that the damage was caused by accidental hand impact during an overtake. Alleged damage. At least you have changed to "accidental". No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On 23/07/2014 16:49, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message On 23/07/2014 15:34, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... On 23/07/2014 12:46, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 11:43, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote On 23/07/2014 10:33, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace. Yes, it is ridiculous for a mirror to cost more than a decent bicycle and fall apart when touched instead of folding. In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was deliberately caused. If a cyclist could damage the mirror of a moving car from a moving bicycle with his fist, he should be given a medal. Not just from getting the aim but to get any energy into a swing. Since it is so unlikely, you're just showing your usual cluelessness. Glass breaks very easily, and would cost around the 50 pound mark which the car owner asked for. Then it seems you haven't a clue about the construction of a door mirror and how the cyclist could possibly deliver a destructive blow while being overtaken. And you claim to be a competent mechanic? Your opinion means such a lot to me. Then we can take it that you have dropped your charge of "deliberate" damage. Unless you want to suggest a credible mechanism. I wonder why the car driver would have thought that the mirror was damaged and that the cyclist should pay following the incident, if the damage was not caused by the cyclist? Perhaps the driver thought incorrectly. Seems unlikely (to me and most sane people) that the damage was caused by accidental hand impact during an overtake. Alleged damage. At least you have changed to "accidental". No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:56:09 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
No, my stance remains the same, the claim by the cyclist is that the contact was accidental, I believe the contact was deliberate on the part of the cyclist. Yes it appears there was some form of contact. Now, which person is being charged for a crime? That is not relevant to whether the event happened. It's a helluva lot more relevant what the investigating officer and the Crown Prosecution Service (and the judge; the car-driver was *convicted*, after all) thought, than some anonymous cyclist-hating whacko on usenet. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A bicycle would never do this much damage | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 8 | July 29th 13 05:58 PM |
Who is liable for the damage? | NM | UK | 381 | October 30th 09 09:23 PM |
Criminal Damage? | Jim Newman | UK | 0 | December 9th 08 10:23 AM |
rim damage asymetric hop? | Steven S | Techniques | 6 | June 9th 07 09:53 PM |
Tire Damage? | Roy Zipris | Techniques | 2 | July 26th 05 03:25 AM |