|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car
TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclist foiled by dashcam. I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be the first. You are a boring ****. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 07/07/2019 21:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be the first. You are a boring ****. Thank goodness for that. I would hate to write something that interests you. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 7. 7. 2019 22:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclist foiled by dashcam. I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be the first. You are a boring ****. Thanks greatly for the compliment. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 8. 7. 2019 0:30, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be the first. You are a boring ****. Thank goodness for that. I would hate to write something that interests you. Nothing interests him except exterminating bicyclists. Genocide is a crime. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car
On Sun, 07 Jul 2019 20:18:39 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote: [] If anybody has yet to tell you that you are a boring ****, allow me to be the first. You are a boring ****. Have you "walked" your "doggie" yet? Saddo. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do". Do you really think anyone believes you? On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't make you look big or clever. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have been different? Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura? Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!). People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances - and play it safe. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote:
On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do". Do you really think anyone believes you? On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't make you look big or clever. I don't want to crash, not look big or clever. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have been different? Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura? Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!). People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances - and play it safe. It depends on how much time there is for the changed circumstances, doesn't it? Since you don't have a clue you wouldn't know. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:06:14 GMT, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote: On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Snip a bit, please chaps! -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame thecar
On 09/07/2019 09:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2019 00:04, JNugent wrote: On 07/07/2019 21:04, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote: On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote: On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote: On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote: On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote: Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer insurance. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the driver failed to do that. He should have stopped. It does not alter fault. The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation. I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would have stopped, as the case may be). I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances. The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of stopping? He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary. He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it. You still haven't looked at the video. I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean). You show no sign of doing so. Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is. Quite unbelievable. I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the circumstances. Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video. There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane. He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation). Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?). I'm not wrong about you. Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did? If you say "Yes", I won't believe you. When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity. But you would have carried on at speed right into the middle of that hazardous situation and would have regarded it as the "best thing to do". Do you really think anyone believes you? On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your pipe and smoke it. You're fibbing. It's transparently obvious. And what for? It doesn't make you look big or clever. I don't want to crash, not look big or clever. That's not clear at all. You said the cyclist did the best thing he could in the circumstances, That can only mean that you can't think of anything better that he could have done (like slow down, or stop, thereby avoiding the collision). If you can't think of that as a solution "in the circumstances", it stands to reason that you would have done the same as he did, thinking that it is big and clever to do so. I wasn't there. So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car. No. Which does not contradict the above. If you had done what the cyclists did ("the best thing to do in the circumstances" was your appraisal of it), how would the outcome have been different? Force of personality? A protective Kryptonian aura? No response. Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes. If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero velocity in his original direction of travel. That makes not the slightest difference. The best thing to do in the circumstances was to slow down and perhaps even stop (shock! horror!). People sometimes make mistakes. When they do, the "best thing to do in the circumstances" is to make allowance for the changed circumstances - and play it safe. It depends on how much time there is for the changed circumstances, doesn't it? Since you don't have a clue you wouldn't know. You're getting sillier with every post. And more erratic. Here's a tip: when heading towards a dangerous developing situation, don't hesitate - just STOP. Do not, for any reason (least of all the fit of pique you'd no doubt be suffering from), let anything divert you from the safe thing to do. THAT is the best thing to do in the circumstances, every time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain biker rides into barbed wire deliberately left on bike trail | Bod[_5_] | UK | 1 | September 25th 17 12:30 PM |
Driver deliberately turns into cyclist and causing cyclist to crash | Bod[_5_] | UK | 6 | October 27th 15 04:26 PM |
Cyclist deliberately maims drunk pedestrian | Mrcheerful | UK | 12 | July 7th 15 09:23 AM |
Car deliberately rams cyclist | Tarcap | UK | 0 | October 11th 13 05:40 PM |
cyclist deliberately rides into the side of a car | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 16 | March 7th 12 10:58 PM |