Who is liable for the damage?

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.

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.

True


Message-ID:


"He argues it's her fault and of course, as is normal, he has no
insurance."

True


Message-ID:


"Sadly it seems her NCB is at risk down to an uninsured ****."

True, at the time, later resolved


Message-ID:


"her NCB is protected"

True


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."

True


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"

True


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"

True


Message-ID:


"she was stopped still in the correct position on the road for turning
right"

True


Message-ID:


"she didn't pull across"

True


Consistency really isn't your thing, is it?

Where is the inconsistancy? Your comprehension skills need
sharpening.

On 26 Oct, 21:06, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:
His trajectory was a result of his initial change of course to avoid what
he obviously thought was going to be a Tbone.

If she wasn't turning across his path, how could the outcome be a
T-bone?

The sailent point here is he reacted as though he thought it would be
a t-bone.

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.

"Derek Geldard" wrote

Not really - if a particular cyclist doesn't have insurance, that
doesn't preclude a claim being made directly against him/her.

There's an old legal maxim that relates to the difficulty of
extracting blood from stones.

Secondly, there's no legal requirement for insurance for good reason -
cyclists tend not to cause damage to others.

Well then insurance should be very very cheap.

It is.

Seriously, so cheap cycling clubs etc could provide it as standard as
part of the benefits of membership.

They do.

My bet is that if it TP cycle insurance was made compulsory, it would
increase the number of uninsured cyclists. Compulsion would almost certainly
mean that it would get dropped from household policies and have to be bought
as a separate item.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:41:31 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
wrote:



Mr. Benn wrote:


So now all the more vociferous posters have migrated to
the censored
newsgroup, uk.rec.cycling is now more usable? It tells
you a lot
about the people who were responsible for the apparent
problems in
this group then.

Hmm!
Haven't seen much from judith recently (today).



Sorry old chap - been a bit busy.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

My bet is that if it TP cycle insurance was made compulsory, it would
increase the number of uninsured cyclists. Compulsion would almost certainly
mean that it would get dropped from household policies and have to be bought
as a separate item.

It would also get far more expensive, due to the cost of maintaining
all the administrative records necessary to show compliance.

So you're saying that compulsory insurance for cars does nothing but
increase the number of uninsured cars on the road and also increases
premiums for drivers?

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.

NM wrote:
On 25 Oct, 21:51, Bambleweeny57 wrote:

I think we've ignored the effects of quantum states on the situation. The
reality is that the car was in all possible positions on the road until
it was actually hit bit the cyclist, and a cat was the only causality.

BW

Whose cat would that be? Yours I hope.

You really are an ignoramus.

NM wrote:
On 26 Oct, 10:29, Happi Monday wrote:

Then tell the ****ing bitch to pay up - a few quid is cheap considering
she might have had a life on her conscience.
Happi

Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender equates to '****ing bitch'
with no knowledge on your part as to the personality of the driver.
maybe if she is a '****ing bitch' as you claim then she probably
hasn't got a consience so won't be bothered about a dead cyclist or
two.

Seeking to blame the cyclist for her own poor driving? The
cap does seem to fit rather well. As does your hypothesis
about her lack of conscience.