Cyclist deliberately rides into a car, then tries to blame the car

On 06/07/2019 23:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/07/2019 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/07/2019 00:32, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 18:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/07/2019 02:13, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2019 00:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 19:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 18:40, MrCheerful wrote:
Compo seeking cyclistÂ* foiled by dashcam.Â* I hope the driver
got his details to make a claim against his fridge freezer
insurance.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-driver.html

When turning right one is supposed to give way and allow
oncoming traffic to pass on the right. The dashcam shows the
driver failed to do that.

He should have stopped.

It does not alter fault.

The way I approach that is that if I were driving my car along
the route he described on his bike, I would have stopped. More to
the point, I would have been looking where I was going and would
have slowed considerably for such a potentially hazardous situation.

I expect you wouldn't have stopped (or won't agree that you would
have stopped, as the case may be).

I wasn't there. He probably did the best thing in the circumstances.

The best thing is running into a stationary vehicle instead of
stopping?

He didn't run into it and the vehicle wasn't stationary.

He did and it was. That vehicle was stationary when he rode into it.

You still haven't looked at the video.

I have done more than "look at it" (whatever that may mean).

You show no sign of doing so.

Would *you* have done it? If you say you would have, you have the
most *warped* sense of what the "best thing" is.
Quite unbelievable.
I'll tell you right now, without fear of contradiction by anyone
sane, that was definitely NOT the best thing to do in the
circumstances.

Then you're pontificating without having looked at the video.

There we a you wouldn't have expected it but we get an attempt at
contradiction by someone who quite clearly cannot be sane.

He says that the best thing to do in a hazardous situation is to mantain
speed and plough on regardless, eventually hitting a vehicle waiting in
the middle of a junction (and if it had been a moving vehicle in his
path, that would be an even more insane recoomendation).

Wrong (yet again - how DO you manage to be so consistent?).

I'm not wrong about you.

Would YOU have done what that stupid, stubborn, reckless, cyclist did?
If you say "Yes", I won't believe you.

When you apply so many adjectives you have completely lost the plot and
are incapable of applying any kind of objectivity.

On balance I would probably have done the same. Now stuff that up your
pipe and smoke it.

I wasn't there.

So you'd have ploughed on and hit the car.

No. Which does not contradict the above.

Either that or you can't see any way of escape from that corner without
getting wet paint on the soles of your shoes.

If you weren't so full of yourself and had any capacity to observe
properly you would notice that he was broadside when the car ran into
him; we see the car running into his back wheel, it is not a head on
impact. In other words he satisfied your requirement to have near zero
velocity in his original direction of travel.