Who is liable for the damage?

Adrian wrote:
NM gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If she stopped in the correct position for turning right, which
position was she in before she moved?

The correct position for turning right, but a few inches back down the
road, try reading the previous posts all the information is there.

If she was just a "few inches down the road", but still on the correct
side of the road, how did a cyclist who was going so fast he was "unable
to stop" end up sitting on the bonnet of her car?

He did explain that, some way back. He said the cyclist lost control of his
machine (with the implication being that his course changed, as otherwise,
losing control would be meaningless).

By all means question inconsistencies, but on that issue, he's been consistent.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:16:11 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 25 Oct, 17:51, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
John considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:21 +0000
the perfect time to write:



On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:09:50 -0700, 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.

The woman was at fault. She should compensate the cyclist.

Of course, it will her insurance company who will have to compensate
the cyclist.
Then she will have to compensate them, through increased premiums and
loss of NCD.

No, the cyclist is undamaged and is not claiming for his bike, her NCB
is protected and seems it isn't at risk anyway when in collision with
uninsured cyclists.

I love a happy ending.

--

Pete

JNugent wrote:

Adrian wrote:
NM gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If she stopped in the correct position for turning right, which
position was she in before she moved?

The correct position for turning right, but a few inches back down the
road, try reading the previous posts all the information is there.

If she was just a "few inches down the road", but still on the correct
side of the road, how did a cyclist who was going so fast he was "unable
to stop" end up sitting on the bonnet of her car?

He did explain that, some way back. He said the cyclist lost control of
his machine

Loss of control != change of course.

(with the implication being that his course changed, as otherwise, losing
control would be meaningless).

No, there's no automatic assumption of change of course with "loss of
control".

By all means question inconsistencies, but on that issue, he's been
consistent.

He's been consistently wriggling, it's true.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:19 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

Try reading the thread all the answers are fully explained.

I think you're mistaking bluster for explanation. Your explanations
are either unclear or woefully inadequate. Even Steve Firth thinks
you're wrong, and God knows he's no defender of cyclists.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 13:29, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:

So the cyclist was faced with some cross-eyed blind bitch who din't see
him and who expected him to cycle across the front of a moving vehicle,
hoping above all hopes that the stupid blind bitch would see him and not
drive over him. Given her lack of observation up to that point, why
should he have taken that leap of faith?

Putting your latest bluster to one side:

She turned across oncoming traffic, didn't look properly before making
her turn, and now she (and you) are making up pathetic excuse after
pathetic excuse.

I was going to counter this until I got to the abuse towards the end,
Mr Firth please vent your bile on someone else, your posts are abusive
and unwelcome, your inferiority complex is showing yet again.

Except he has a point. The cyclist has a choice that has to be made in a
split second as the car turns into his path. Going straight is a leap of
faith that the driver will notice them and stop. or swerving to go
behind the vehicle. The driver has given him a choice to make in a split
second but he has no way to know which one will avoid the collision.

He had no way to be certain of avoiding the collision due to the actions
of the driver. That he got unlucky is not his fault in any way.

--chris

Steve Firth wrote:


The cyclist did make a serious mistake. He should have screamed the
place down and demanded an ambulance. That would have ensured a police
presence and possibly got the silly stupid bitch arrested.


Possibly, or, as I experienced, the police suggested that I
should have stopped to allow the ****tard to sort himself out.

Blame the cyclist.

Having a paramedic, GP, ambulance and a police car closing
the road was strangely pleasing though.

NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 16:44, Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:53:06 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On 25 Oct, 13:15, Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:00:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:
On 25 Oct, 11:34, BrianW wrote:
On 24 Oct, 16:32, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:
You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.
Indeed, how dare he be rude to some ****ing stupid bitch who doesn't
give a **** about the safety of other road users. A ****ing stupid bitch
who hopes that she can strong-arm her victim into paying for the damage
that was a consequence of her negligence. The cheek of the man to
declare that a ****ing stupid blind bitch needs to get her ****ing
stupid blind eyes tested before she gets behind the wheel of a car and
that she should ****ing well look where she's driving before she kills
someone next time.
I'm just glad that he didn't wish the aforesaid ****ing stupid blind
bitch a session in a pit full of broken glass before being dragged down
the road behind a posse of cyclists who have chosen the road most
covered in dog **** for the experience. Maybe if he'd also asked for the
closet racist supporter of the same ****ing stupid blind bitch to be
subject to the same treatment that would have been approaching rude. But
I doubt it.
BTW, how rude is trying to a kill a cyclist using a car as a weapon?
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Sorry, Mr Morgan, but I have a low tolerance of ****tard drivers who
cause collisions by not looking and then seek to blame someone else.
Particularly since almost being killed earlier this year ... by a
****tard driver who caused a collision by not looking and is now
seeking to blame me.
I fail to see how she caused the collision, she didn't cross his path
he collided with her, she was stopped still in the correct position on
the road for turning right, however don't let a few facts get in the
way
In your original description of the incident, you said "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 ".
If she was stopped in the correct position for turning right, ie
parallel to the white line, how is the cyclist going to pass in front
of her? The description also infers to me that the gap available to
the cyclist had decreased, which further suggests she had already
started the turn right.
Perhaps a diagram would help everyone understand?
--
Pete
Nitpicking fest anyone?
I can't be bothered with this anymore, I've had my question answered
by the less idiotic contributors, thanks for that input.
Nitpicking? Nitpicking?

One simple question which is highly relevant to fault.

Had she started to turn right or was she still waiting, parallel to
the white line?

--

Pete

Try going back and reading, it's all there
You're ****ing making it up as you go along. The many
changes, worming and slow development of detail are, as you
say, "all there".

The witness is not credible, your honour.

JNugent wrote:
Al C-F wrote:
Bill wrote:
In message
,
NM writes


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,

So he was not in full control of his vehicle? If you can't put your
feet on the ground to steady your self quickly in an emergency it
sounds very suicidal to me.

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.

A very good example of why cyclists should all have a basic, 3rd
party, level of insurance. There would still be ill feelings after
an accident but at least no one would be seriously out of pocket.

1. This is not an appropriate example
2. Many (most?) cyclists are covered by their household insurance

...for what?

Loss of / damage to the bike or against any third party risks?
3rd party.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:17:22 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Peter Grange considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009
19:30:12 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:16:11 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 25 Oct, 17:51, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
John considered Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:13:21 +0000
the perfect time to write:



On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:09:50 -0700, 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.

The woman was at fault. She should compensate the cyclist.

Of course, it will her insurance company who will have to compensate
the cyclist.
Then she will have to compensate them, through increased premiums and
loss of NCD.

No, the cyclist is undamaged and is not claiming for his bike, her NCB
is protected and seems it isn't at risk anyway when in collision with
uninsured cyclists.

I love a happy ending.

Doesn't seem very happy to me if the cyclist has not been compensated
for the damage to or destruction of his property, and a ****wit is
free to continue putting others at risk.

Irony old bean. The post did seem to tidy up everything nicely, and I
was _so_ pleased about the NCB being protected.

--

Pete

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 25 Oct, 16:44, Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:53:06 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



On 25 Oct, 13:15, Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:00:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 25 Oct, 11:34, BrianW wrote:
On 24 Oct, 16:32, (Steve Firth) wrote:

NM wrote:
You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.

Indeed, how dare he be rude to some ****ing stupid bitch who doesn't
give a **** about the safety of other road users. A ****ing stupid bitch
who hopes that she can strong-arm her victim into paying for the damage
that was a consequence of her negligence. The cheek of the man to
declare that a ****ing stupid blind bitch needs to get her ****ing
stupid blind eyes tested before she gets behind the wheel of a car and
that she should ****ing well look where she's driving before she kills
someone next time.

I'm just glad that he didn't wish the aforesaid ****ing stupid blind
bitch a session in a pit full of broken glass before being dragged down
the road behind a posse of cyclists who have chosen the road most
covered in dog **** for the experience. Maybe if he'd also asked for the
closet racist supporter of the same ****ing stupid blind bitch to be
subject to the same treatment that would have been approaching rude. But
I doubt it.

BTW, how rude is trying to a kill a cyclist using a car as a weapon?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Sorry, Mr Morgan, but I have a low tolerance of ****tard drivers who
cause collisions by not looking and then seek to blame someone else.
Particularly since almost being killed earlier this year ... by a
****tard driver who caused a collision by not looking and is now
seeking to blame me.

I fail to see how she caused the collision, she didn't cross his path
he collided with her, she was stopped still in the correct position on
the road for turning right, however don't let a few facts get in the
way

In your original description of the incident, you said "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 ".

If she was stopped in the correct position for turning right, ie
parallel to the white line, how is the cyclist going to pass in front
of her? The description also infers to me that the gap available to
the cyclist had decreased, which further suggests she had already
started the turn right.

Perhaps a diagram would help everyone understand?

--

Pete

Nitpicking fest anyone?
I can't be bothered with this anymore, I've had my question answered
by the less idiotic contributors, thanks for that input.

Nitpicking? *Nitpicking?

One simple question which is highly relevant to fault.

Had she started to turn right or was she still waiting, parallel to
the white line?

--

Pete

Try going back and reading, it's all there

Yes I read the whole story, and stotry is what it seemed to be. I
still can't figure out how the cyclist could pass in front of her if
she was still on her own side of the road parallel to the white line.

--

Pete