|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
"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? |
#287
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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 |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Who is liable for the damage?
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. :-) |
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 |