Who is liable for the damage?

On 27 Oct, 14:45, Al C-F
m wrote:
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.

In the words of a judge many years ago, illiteracy is a
misfortune, not a privilege. I have left your latest two
mistakes alone as this is what you seem to prefer.

If you point out my mistakes in a constructive fashion then I am
grateful, I don't use a spill chucker in an attempt to master the
problem, if you want to make 'points' then I can be very ascerbic even
though it may be miss spelt.

On 27 Oct, 14:54, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
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.

Who are they?

If you loose control then you are not using it properly therefore you
must share some blame.

I can imagine many possible scenrios where being surprised
by the howling incompetence of another road user may result
in one making such an extreme avoiding manoeuvre that some
control is lost in the interest of reducing speed.

Sure, I carry the scars to this day, when travelling to school proudly
on my 150cc Triumph Terrier a car turned in front of me and I grabbed
the front brake too hard, skidded on the gravel, ended up as a
surfboard with my girlfriend (who shouldn't have been there, I was a
learner, No pillion) the surfer. Sure the car was wrong he didn't even
know I was there but I knew I was also wrong because I should have
anticipated and I was going far too fast. Lack of experience showed.

On 27 Oct, 15:05, BrianW wrote:
On 27 Oct, 12:51, NM wrote:



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.

Nor have I. *Methinks you may be confusing me with Brian Robertson?

Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of
being '****'.

chuckle

You have a very thin skin for a troll.

I thought I was replying to Brian (train driver, **** head) I
apologise unreservedy for confusing you with him. I wouldn't wish that
on my worse enemy. Sorry.

On 27 Oct, 17:15, Happi Monday wrote:
NM wrote:
On 26 Oct, 09:26, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Keitht KeithT wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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).
The implication is that he hadn't got control of the vehicle - not that
he had deviated from the original path. A straight-line skid is not
changing course, just keeping balance while gong 'oh ****'.
(same goes for cars)
It's also worth emphasising that a vehicle which someone has lost
control of tends to continue in a straight line. Who says so? Mr Newton.

1. In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a
straight line with constant speed.

True but the direction of the resultant straight line need have little
bearing on the original course, any number of causes can result in a
change of direction.

Hitting a bitch in car that pulls across you might do it.

As this didn't occur in this instance it has little relevence to the
discussion in hand.

On 27 Oct, 22:09, NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 15:05, BrianW wrote:





On 27 Oct, 12:51, NM wrote:

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.

Nor have I. �Methinks you may be confusing me with Brian Robertson?

Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of
being '****'.

chuckle

You have a very thin skin for a troll.

I thought I was replying to Brian (train driver, **** head) I
apologise unreservedy for confusing you with him. I wouldn't wish that
on my worse enemy. Sorry.

That's OK. You aren't the first on here to confuse me with him, and I
doubt you'll be the last.

"Derek Geldard" wrote

In this instance probably so. Mostly, cyclists in a built up area are
unable to exceed the speed limit unless "Riding furiously" downhill We
live on a hill and it happens a lot around here, they achieve 45 - 50
mph.

The piece of road concerned is the full length of the A643 on here.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=427258&Y=429371&A=Y&Z=110

From the contour lines it looks no more than about 1 in 15. 45 is way above
any realistic speed..

I've trailed them as they go down the hill, god only knows what would
have have happened if the pedestrian lights had turned red. The old
dears take a green man aspect as an absolute indication it is safe to
go.

What could have happened?

NM wrote:

What you all have not taken in to account is that I related the story
from the lady and have repeatedly had to ring her since the first
posting to get clarification of all the tiny details you lot require.
She is now ****ed off so I doubt if I will be welcome if I try for
even more clarification.

Right. So the readers of this newsgroup have *made you* phone up this
person repeatedly, because of *their need* for more information, thus
causing this person to become annoyed with you?

I can see you live in a world where everything that happens is someone
else's fault.

Anyway, you're quite right - I doubt a single person reading this has
taken that into account. Normally when someone asks for advice on
Usenet, the people responding don't feel they have to make allowances
for an irritated third party's reluctance to provide more information.

I don't know what you thought you might achieve by starting this
discussion. I find it hard to believe that you really wanted advice on
blame or liability, I think you just wanted to start a row.

You got the row, and now you're complaining that it didn't go your way.
So you're not even very good at trolling.

Daniele

NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 14:43, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:

Well you see it your way and I'll see it mine.
Evidently you do. And you have been receiving the
appropriate mocking.

Which I have ignored, as one would ignore a baying mob

Ignored, in the sense of responding to them. As you have
ignored any opinion that does not accord with your own.

NM wrote:


If you point out my mistakes in a constructive fashion then I am
grateful, I don't use a spill chucker in an attempt to master the
problem, if you want to make 'points' then I can be very ascerbic even
though it may be miss spelt.

Are you this grateful when driving errors are pointed out?
The evidence is that you are not.

DavidR wrote:
"Derek Geldard" wrote


I've trailed them as they go down the hill, god only knows what would
have have happened if the pedestrian lights had turned red. The old
dears take a green man aspect as an absolute indication it is safe to
go.

What could have happened?



He can't tell you because he's not god. Try and keep up. :-)