Who is liable for the damage?

On 27 Oct, 10:05, Al C-F
m wrote:
NM wrote:
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.

And what made him think of that possibility? Car turning
across his path, perhaps

He thought it might, but it didn't. Had it done so he would be
blameless however riding too quickly to stop and loosing control when
attempting makes him partially to blame.

On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:51, NM wrote:



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.

OK then, here's something original.

A mate of mine is a really **** driver. *She's so **** she caused a
cyclist to crash into her. *But it wasn't her fault. *Oh no. *It was
the cyclist's fault.

Oh, wait, that's not original, NM has already posted it slaps
forehead

Your lack of comprehension skills are showing again.

On 27 Oct, 12:41, NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 09:46, Al C-F

m wrote:
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.

Because I don't agree with you? Right.

No, because you are evidently unfamiliar with the concept of
Schrodinger's Cat.

HTH.

On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:51, NM wrote:



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.

OK then, here's something original.

A mate of mine is a really **** driver. *She's so **** she caused a
cyclist to crash into her. *But it wasn't her fault. *Oh no. *It was
the cyclist's fault.

Oh, wait, that's not original, NM has already posted it slaps
forehead

She's such a **** driver that in the nearly forty years she has been
driving, including many miles on the continent she has never had as
much as a scratched fender and I know for a fact she has never driven
a bus or a train whilst ****ed when there were fare paying passengers
aboard. Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of
being '****'.

Hi folks

Can I just stick my head over the parapet to ask NM a couple of quick
questions please ???

Was the car entirely on its own side of the centre white lines of the main
road ? If not, was it partially over the lines or totally over ?

TIA

Jan

NM wrote:

On 27 Oct, 10:04, "Paul - xxx" wrote:
NM wrote:
Vivid imagination, slow speed fender bender

I thought the cyclist was speeding?

Why did you think that?

Your first post ..
"at the last moment she spotted a cyclist, who had
right of way being on the main road but going in her opinion far too
fast"

Speeding doesn't necessarily mean being over a speed limit ... if he
was 'going far too fast' then it wasn't a 'slow speed fender bender'
was it? If it was a 'slow speed fender bender', how can you previously
describe his manner as being 'far too fast'?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

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.


Blimey, can't even spell 'dyslexic' properly ;-)

(I'd be diagnosed as 'dyspraxic' nowadays with a touch of ADD and motor
issues with handwriting thrown in free -- which it why jms' 'thick'
label is amusing to me as I was bullied at school by teachers who
invited the rest of the class to join in)

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

BrianW wrote:
On 27 Oct, 12:41, NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 09:46, Al C-F

m wrote:
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.
Because I don't agree with you? Right.

No, because you are evidently unfamiliar with the concept of
Schrodinger's Cat.

HTH.

And I was trying to work out whether 'causality' was a typo or not ;-)

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 12:18, BrianW wrote:
I know for a fact she has never driven
a bus or a train whilst ****ed when there were fare paying passengers
aboard. Maybe you should remember that when accusing other drivers of
being '****'.

I thought everyone had driven a bus or train full of fare
paying passengers whilst ****ed at least once. She is surely
a rare bird.

NM wrote:
On 27 Oct, 09:50, Al C-F
m wrote:
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.

Well you see it your way and I'll see it mine.
Evidently you do. And you have been receiving the
appropriate mocking.