Who is liable for the damage?

Phil W Lee 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?

No, I'd prefer them to ride at a speed where they can maintain control
as all other road users have to do. Cycles have much narrower tyres and
generally much bigger wheels in case you haven't noticed.

I suppose at least you're consistently stupid.

No your consistently wrong.
--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

NM wrote:

Thanks, but you are wrong yet again I was knocked off my motorcycle
early this morning and am suffering a dislocated elbow, now re-set and
in a cast, still bloody painful, I have spent most of the day in
hospital, the morphine hasn't worn off yet hence the one fingered
attack on the keyboard. (Cue know****alls to make silly comments).

I'm very sorry to hear about your accident, which sounds extremely
painful. I'm glad it wasn't more serious.

I am very surprised though to hear that you are a motorcyclist. All the
motorcyclists I meet on the roads seem to share a sense of solidarity
with pedal cyclists, whereas you seem very unsympathetic and hostile to
them.

Daniele

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

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"

Then why did you snip the rest of it? Here's a reminder. At
freewheel all power for motion is supplied by gravity. To get from freewheel
to any greater speed requires that the rider supplies the additional power.
There's a big shortfall. On top of which, that shortfall has to be coupled
into fast spinning pedals. The physics does not favour your argument.

Besides your speedometer is optimistic - as is mine. When I am following
cyclists going at apparantly impressive speeds, I don't get an inferiority
complex.

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.

Right, so you were doing (nearly) 45mph in a car. Then he was riding with no
more fury than you were driving.

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.

Then I suppose this sort of thing
http://www.ducati.com/en/bikes/index.jhtml can't be very good either
(particularly when one wheel seems to be redundant).

However sometimes emergency braking is
necessary, and when it's necessary, it's necessary.

Actually, I suppose I do need to do more emergency braking on a bike
than I need to in a car. Generally due to car drivers getting in the way.

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.

Safety has more than one dimension. But there is no moral justification of
saying that a bike rider shouldn't be able to go as fast as a car.

Al C-F 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.

Dyslexia is not the same as illiteracy.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

mileburner wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Well I can't help but agree, the facts are all there for the reading,
sorry you were too slow to take it on board, you could always go back
for a re-read. (Apologies for the typo, of course most people will
have realised I should have typed silly not sily, shame your retorts
are reduced to picking up on typos, I have heard thats one of the
signs of defeat in a discussion?).

I think she should say "sorry" to him (and hope he forgives her) and that
will be the end of it :-)

Perhaps all ills would be solved if everyone admitted their faults.
Unfortunately it's not really in human nature.

In this case it might not have been discussed so extensively if both
people had not been at fault in some way. Hence also the thread title.
Its not as clear cut as *some* cyclists would have it - there are
failings on both sides.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright wrote:
Al C-F 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.

Dyslexia is not the same as illiteracy.

Tell it to someone who gives a ****.

NM wrote:
On 29 Oct, 18:03, Happi Monday wrote:
NM wrote:
CAN'T TYPE IT due to an accident this morning that leaves me with only
one useful hand at the moment.
That was the cyclist's fault.

No it was my fault.
Pity you weren't riding in a manner that allowed you to stay
in control.

The Germans have a word for it.

Al C-F m wrote:

CAN'T TYPE IT due to an accident this morning that leaves me with only
one useful hand at the moment.
That was the cyclist's fault.

No it was my fault.
Pity you weren't riding in a manner that allowed you to stay
in control.

The Germans have a word for it.

That's rather unpleasant.

It's one thing to be irritated by someone on Usenet, but it's something
else to be pleased that they've been injured.

Daniele

On 29 Oct, 23:01, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
On 29 Oct, 18:03, Happi Monday wrote:
NM wrote:
CAN'T TYPE IT due to an accident this morning that leaves me with only
one useful hand at the moment.
That was the cyclist's fault.

No it was my fault.

Pity you weren't riding in a manner that allowed you to stay
in control.

I was.


The Germans have a word for it.

What word would that be

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:53:11 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 29 Oct, 23:01, Al C-F
om wrote:
NM wrote:
On 29 Oct, 18:03, Happi Monday wrote:
NM wrote:
CAN'T TYPE IT due to an accident this morning that leaves me with only
one useful hand at the moment.
That was the cyclist's fault.

No it was my fault.

Pity you weren't riding in a manner that allowed you to stay
in control.

I was.


The Germans have a word for it.

What word would that be


"Es"

Derek