|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
On 27 Oct, 10:05, Al C-F
m wrote: 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 He thought it might, but it didn't. Had it done so he would be blameless however riding too quickly to stop and loosing control when attempting makes him partially to blame. |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote:
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 Your lack of comprehension skills are showing again. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
On 27 Oct, 12:41, NM wrote:
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. No, because you are evidently unfamiliar with the concept of Schrodinger's Cat. HTH. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote:
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 She's such a **** driver that in the nearly forty years she has been driving, including many miles on the continent she has never had as much as a scratched fender and I know for a fact she has never driven a bus or a train whilst ****ed when there were fare paying passengers aboard. Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of being '****'. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
Hi folks Can I just stick my head over the parapet to ask NM a couple of quick questions please ??? Was the car entirely on its own side of the centre white lines of the main road ? If not, was it partially over the lines or totally over ? TIA Jan |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 10:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote: NM wrote: Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender I thought the cyclist was speeding? Why did you think that? Your first post .. "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" Speeding doesn't necessarily mean being over a speed limit ... if he was 'going far too fast' then it wasn't a 'slow speed fender bender' was it? If it was a 'slow speed fender bender', how can you previously describe his manner as being 'far too fast'? -- Paul - xxx '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
NM wrote:
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. Blimey, can't even spell 'dyslexic' properly ;-) (I'd be diagnosed as 'dyspraxic' nowadays with a touch of ADD and motor issues with handwriting thrown in free -- which it why jms' 'thick' label is amusing to me as I was bullied at school by teachers who invited the rest of the class to join in) -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
BrianW wrote:
On 27 Oct, 12:41, NM wrote: 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. No, because you are evidently unfamiliar with the concept of Schrodinger's Cat. HTH. And I was trying to work out whether 'causality' was a typo or not ;-) -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote: I know for a fact she has never driven a bus or a train whilst ****ed when there were fare paying passengers aboard. Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of being '****'. I thought everyone had driven a bus or train full of fare paying passengers whilst ****ed at least once. She is surely a rare bird. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
NM wrote:
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. Evidently you do. And you have been receiving the appropriate mocking. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
8 year bike rider accident with truck- who's liable? | [email protected] | General | 74 | December 8th 06 03:48 AM |
Helment Damage. | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 48 | April 21st 05 04:49 PM |
Tire damage | Roger Zoul | General | 0 | May 4th 04 10:27 PM |
What's this liable to cost? | Doki | UK | 5 | March 12th 04 08:09 PM |
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death | Snoopy | Racing | 78 | September 10th 03 02:55 AM |