Who is liable for the damage?

On 30 Oct, 02:01, Derek Geldard wrote:
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

I thought it was German not Spanish.

John Wright wrote:


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.


Which is how I read it from the beginning but no-one has slagged me off
about saying so. Am I being too reasonable for URC?
I guess I need to be completely polarised and anti-car or anti-bike but
I keep stalling between two fools.

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Al C-F wrote:
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 ****.

Hmm, got any idea what dyslexia is?
Dyspraxia?
Or are they just things that 'thick' people have?



--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

NM wrote:
On 30 Oct, 02:01, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:53:11 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:



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
"Es"

Derek

I thought it was German not Spanish.

" . . . makes a man want to speak Spanish
Como se llama (si), bonita (si), mi casa (si, Shakira Shakira), su casa
Shakira, Shakira"




--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Keitht wrote:
Al C-F wrote:
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 ****.

Hmm, got any idea what dyslexia is?
Dyspraxia?
Or are they just things that 'thick' people have?



Perfectly aware thank you. But neither condition confers any
privilege, in the same way that no privilege is due to
illiterates.

Whether they are the same or different is immaterial to the
point.

D.M. Procida wrote:
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.


NM's prang makes an interesting development on the argument
though, doesn't it? And so timely.

"NM" wrote in message
...
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.

So she pulled onto the cyclists side of the road but because the cyclist did
not go through the gap which was left it must have been the cyclists fault.
What disturbs me about this is that there are road users out there who
actually think like this. What if there was a gutterside cycle lane?
Presumably that would exonerate the driver entirely as the cyclist should
have/could have been in the cycle lane.

But try turning the situation around. Let's say it was the cyclist turning
right (who proceeded but then stopped) and it was the car driver who slammed
on the anchors and skidded into the cyclist (even though there was still
enough room to pass). I think most of us in here (excluding Doug because he
is a special case) would agree that it would have been the cyclists fault
for failing to give way to an approaching car.

"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
John Wright wrote:


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.


Which is how I read it from the beginning but no-one has slagged me off
about saying so. Am I being too reasonable for URC?
I guess I need to be completely polarised and anti-car or anti-bike but I
keep stalling between two fools.

The cyclist will no doubt take a little more care when faced with this
situation again and may ride more sedately in places. We live and learn.
However, NM's question was "Who is liable for the damage". It is quite clear
who is liable, it is quite clear who is at fault. But that does not mean
that the "innocent" party could have taken more care. Over the years I have
avoided many accidents which would not have been my fault, but that would
not have made them my fault if I had allowed them to happen.

NM wrote:

The Germans have a word for it.

What word would that be

Betäubungsmittelverschreibungsverordnung

On 30 Oct, 09:40, Keitht KeithT wrote:
NM wrote:
On 30 Oct, 02:01, Derek Geldard wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:53:11 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

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
"Es"

Derek

I thought it was German not Spanish.

" . . . makes a man want to speak Spanish
Como se llama (si), bonita (si), mi casa (si, Shakira Shakira), su casa
Shakira, Shakira"

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

claro que si, hombre, no passa nada.