Who is liable for the damage?

"Derek Geldard" wrote
"DavidR" wrote:
"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.

They said the same thing about the Titanic.

It is 1 in 11.

Very well, but it's not steep enough to freewheel at 45mph.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gee-bee/morley/11.htm

45 is way above any realistic speed..

And scrotes on pushbikes don't ride at "Realistic" speeds.

Unfortunately I can't find an article that shows the aerodynamics of bikes
at 45mph but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to prove that a typical
"scrote" on the equipment typically favoured by "scrotes" wouldn't be able
to provide or deliver the power necessary to make the difference.

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?

Depends on your perspective.

From the perspective of the Old Dear it could ruin her whole day.

What meant was - what could have happened any differently from a car doing
the same speed? -since you said you were trailing (in, I presume, a car, not
a helicopter). Bearing in mind that a bike is narrower and need not always
brake in circumstances that forces a car driver to to do so.

"NM" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct, 10:43, "mileburner" wrote:

I think we have finally got to the end of NM's silly little tale.

The driver went to turn right across the path of a cyclist. She stopped
as
she realised that they would collide but she had already crossed the
line.
The cyclist lost control trying to stop and hit the car.

Between them NM and the driver want to try to blame the cyclist for going
too fast, and using toe clips or clipless pedals.

Not quite right but you are getting closer, have a re think,
especially about the already crossed the line bit.

I had a re-read of NM's original post.

"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"

"...she then pulled forward to enter the street...".

Or have the goalposts now moved?

mileburner wrote:

Or have the goalposts now moved?

No, he's still claiming that half a dozen mutually incompatible
statements are "true". So his goalposts are in exactly the same place.
One on the moon the other in the land of fairies.

Steve Firth wrote:
mileburner wrote:

Or have the goalposts now moved?

No, he's still claiming that half a dozen mutually incompatible
statements are "true". So his goalposts are in exactly the same place.
One on the moon the other in the land of fairies.

Having been roundly humiliated, he is now claiming to have
been trolling all along.

Daft bugger.

Al C-F m wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
mileburner wrote:

Or have the goalposts now moved?

No, he's still claiming that half a dozen mutually incompatible
statements are "true". So his goalposts are in exactly the same place.
One on the moon the other in the land of fairies.

Having been roundly humiliated, he is now claiming to have
been trolling all along.

Oh yes, I saw that. As we keep telling Toomy, the art of trolling is to
make someone else look stupid.

Daft bugger.

He is that, I particularly liked the claim that the driver turned into
the path of the cyclist leaving only a narrow gap that a cycle could fit
through (I assume that was the meaning of "there was still sufficient
room for the cyclist to pass along the main road in front of her") and
later claims that the car was waiting perfectly positioned on the
correct side of the white line.

Then to follow it up with an "I was only trolling" excuse, priceless.
Even Toomy would struggle to be that clueless.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:21:05 -0000, "DavidR"
wrote:

"Derek Geldard" wrote
"DavidR" wrote:
"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.

They said the same thing about the Titanic.

It is 1 in 11.

Very well, but it's not steep enough to freewheel at 45mph.


Congratulations on the first mention of "Freewheel" in this thread.

However if you notice I said riding furiously. It's (still) up there ^
nailed on the wall to remind you.

In my book you have to pedal to "ride furiously"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gee-bee/morley/11.htm

45 is way above any realistic speed..

And scrotes on pushbikes don't ride at "Realistic" speeds.

Unfortunately I can't find an article that shows the aerodynamics of bikes
at 45mph but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to prove that a typical
"scrote" on the equipment typically favoured by "scrotes" wouldn't be able
to provide or deliver the power necessary to make the difference.

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?

Depends on your perspective.

From the perspective of the Old Dear it could ruin her whole day.

What meant was - what could have happened any differently from a car doing
the same speed? -since you said you were trailing (in, I presume, a car, not
a helicopter).

A car not a space shuttle or motorised unicycle etc etc.

Bearing in mind that a bike is narrower and need not always
brake in circumstances that forces a car driver to to do so.


Just as well, braking and stopping performance is far worse on a bike
than a car, as is stability. However sometimes emergency braking is
necessary, and when it's necessary, it's necessary.

If you are trying to prove that riding furiously on a bike for 1km
down a 1 in 11 hill is as safe a means of transport as a car then you
are ****ing up a rope.

Derek

Derek Geldard wrote:

If you are trying to prove that riding furiously on a bike for 1km
down a 1 in 11 hill is as safe a means of transport as a car then you
are ****ing up a rope.

Derek


If you are suggesting that yer average scrote has a bike capable of
being pedalled at over 30 mph then you are ****ing in the wind.



--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:57:45 +0000, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Derek Geldard wrote:

If you are trying to prove that riding furiously on a bike for 1km
down a 1 in 11 hill is as safe a means of transport as a car then you
are ****ing up a rope.

Derek


If you are suggesting that yer average scrote has a bike capable of
being pedalled at over 30 mph then you are ****ing in the wind.

Lets have a ****ing contest then.

One to be ready ...

Two to be steady ...

Derek

On 29 Oct, 05:57, "mileburner" wrote:
"NM" wrote in message

...

On 28 Oct, 10:43, "mileburner" wrote:

I think we have finally got to the end of NM's silly little tale.

The driver went to turn right across the path of a cyclist. She stopped
as
she realised that they would collide but she had already crossed the
line.
The cyclist lost control trying to stop and hit the car.

Between them NM and the driver want to try to blame the cyclist for going
too fast, and using toe clips or clipless pedals.

Not quite right but you are getting closer, have a re think,
especially about the already crossed the line bit.

I had a re-read of NM's original post.

"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"

"...she then pulled forward to enter the street...".

Or have the goalposts now moved?

Pulled forward to enter is not the same as pulled forward so far as to
block the opposite lane. Goalpost have been firmly in position all
along, your non acceptance of this fact is the item that is wrong, the
constant twisting of the facts to obtain the result you want is quite
amusing.

On 29 Oct, 07:59, (Steve Firth) wrote:
mileburner wrote:
Or have the goalposts now moved?

No, he's still claiming that half a dozen mutually incompatible
statements are "true". So his goalposts are in exactly the same place.
One on the moon the other in the land of fairies.

As you wish, do the blinkers you wear impede any other of your
functions, you are so convinced you are right.QUESTION MARK, HERE BUT
CAN'T TYPE IT due to an accident this morning that leaves me with only
one useful hand at the moment.