Who is liable for the damage?

NM wrote:


What argument, you call an onslaught of venomous bile from a bunch of
lycra loonies an argument?

It didn't actually start that way. It has evolved so in
response to your pigheadedness.

BTW, I have corrected your 2 typos rather than take the ****.

NM wrote:

Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender

I thought the cyclist was speeding?


--
Paul - xxx

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

NM wrote:
On 26 Oct, 21:06, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:
His trajectory was a result of his initial change of course to avoid what
he obviously thought was going to be a Tbone.
If she wasn't turning across his path, how could the outcome be a
T-bone?

The sailent point here is he reacted as though he thought it would be
a t-bone.

And what made him think of that possibility? Car turning
across his path, perhaps

On 26 Oct, 22:51, NM wrote:
On 26 Oct, 21:47, BrianW wrote:





On 26 Oct, 21:06, (Steve Firth) wrote:

NM wrote:
it's long resolved, shaken hands all round, mutual apologies he's
undamaged and luckily NCB is intact, everyone's happy.

Message-ID:


"He argues it's her fault and of course, as is normal, he has no
insurance."

Message-ID:


"Sadly it seems her NCB is at risk down to an uninsured ****."

Message-ID:


"her NCB is protected"

Message-ID:


"His trajectory was a result of his initial change of course to avoid
what he obviously thought was going to be a Tbone."

Message-ID:


"If you think about it the cyclist would have hit the wing
or door of the car had it been some type of t-bone"

Message-ID:


"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 ... 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"

Message-ID:


"she was stopped still in the correct position on the road for turning
right"

Message-ID:


"she didn't pull across"

Consistency really isn't your thing, is it?

He is consistently ****witted, if that counts.

Brian, please come up with something original, I'm fed up with the
variations on the word ****wit. Oh! Sorry I forgot you can't, it would
involve thinking.

OK then, here's something original.

A mate of mine is a really **** driver. She's so **** she caused a
cyclist to crash into her. But it wasn't her fault. Oh no. It was
the cyclist's fault.

Oh, wait, that's not original, NM has already posted it slaps
forehead

On 27 Oct, 04:57, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
John Wright ""john\"@no spam here.com" considered Mon, 26 Oct 2009
18:43:36 +0000 the perfect time to write:



Chris Gerhard wrote:
NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 21:25, Chris Gerhard wrote:
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

Yes it was, he was riding too fast for the situation and was not in
proper control.

All the evidence presented does not support your assertion.

If you lose control you're going too fast. Simple really.

So you would prefer cyclists to keep riding directly into the side of
an illegally turning car, just to prove they are still in control?

I suppose at least you're consistently stupid.

I didn't say that, it's an extrapolation with your choice of spin
included. Feel better now?

On 27 Oct, 09:41, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 21:33, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 16:44, Peter Grange wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:53:06 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:
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.

You mean I'm not providing the answers you want don't you.

Er,no. I mean that your story is all over the place, but
with the one consistent thread that the motorist's actions
caused the cyclist to believe that she would pull into his path.

You have also consistently sought to blame the cyclist, a
view that nobody else has supported.

Except those who have agreed that there must be some blame apportioned
to the cyclist.
If you loose control then you are not using it properly therefore you
must share some blame.

On 27 Oct, 09:46, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 21:51, Bambleweeny57 wrote:
I think we've ignored the effects of quantum states on the situation. The
reality is that the car was in all possible positions on the road until
it was actually hit bit the cyclist, and a cat was the only causality.

BW

Whose cat would that be? Yours I hope.

You really are an ignoramus.

Because I don't agree with you? Right.

On 27 Oct, 09:50, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
On 26 Oct, 10:29, Happi Monday wrote:
Then tell the ****ing bitch to pay up - a few quid is cheap considering
she might have had a life on her conscience.
Happi

Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender equates to '****ing bitch'
with no knowledge on your part as to the personality of the driver.
maybe if she is a '****ing bitch' as you claim then she probably
hasn't got a consience so won't be bothered about a dead cyclist or
two.

Seeking to blame the cyclist for her own poor driving? The
cap does seem to fit rather well. As does your hypothesis
about her lack of conscience.

Well you see it your way and I'll see it mine.

On 27 Oct, 10:02, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:

What argument, you call an onslaught of venomous bile from a bunch of
lycra loonies an argument?

It didn't actually start that way. It has evolved so in
response to your pigheadedness.

BTW, I have corrected your 2 typos rather than take the ****.

Inexcuseable. behaviour of mod moron mentality more like it. BTW I'm
diagnosed dislexic from years ago, what's your excuse? I suppose you
like poking fun at cripples as well.

On 27 Oct, 10:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
NM wrote:
Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender

I thought the cyclist was speeding?

--
Paul - xxx

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

Why did you think that?