Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:19:42 -0300, Bret Cahil wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:48:50 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove a

hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing

instinctive about putting up a hand,

Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.

yet I have often seen claims and

reports of cyclists deliberately damaging car miiror of vehicles that

the cyclist feels has offended or insulted them in some way, such as

hooting at them.

Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip off.

The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon impact with a cyclist.



Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace.
In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was
deliberately caused.

In this case, caused by the motorist's actions - and from the accounts of the collision, very much
deliberate..


Here in Wisconson the law requires at least three feet of clearance when a car passes a bicycle.
Sounds like our British counterparts' laws are a bit behind - if they had a similar minimum (and the
driver had obeyed it) there would have been no collision.



If cars were to disintegrate upon an impact then
there would be no protection for the occupants.

The motorist and maybe a larger item like the engine would slide along for
awhile in a pile of dust much like the deacon's masterpiece.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:24:07 -0300, AMuzi wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:19:42 -0300, Bret Cahil wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:48:50 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove a

hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing

instinctive about putting up a hand,

Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.

yet I have often seen claims and

reports of cyclists deliberately damaging car miiror of vehicles that

the cyclist feels has offended or insulted them in some way, such as

hooting at them.

Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip off.

The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon impact with a cyclist.



Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace.
In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was
deliberately caused.

In this case, caused by the motorist's actions - and from the accounts of the collision, very much
deliberate..


Here in Wisconson the law requires at least three feet of clearance when a car passes a bicycle.
Sounds like our British counterparts' laws are a bit behind - if they had a similar minimum (and the
driver had obeyed it) there would have been no collision.



I believe you mean "English", not "British". Here in the UKofNIandGB each country has it's own
highway code; the English one does indeed lack a specified distance.

The other countries' codes are largely similar; the only difference I've encountered is
some-bit-or-other of the code for Scotland dealing with sheep (don't ask); but I'me sure there are
others. If interested you could post on uk.legal.moderated - there's a personal friend who happens
to be an expert on many of the differences between English and Scottish laws who frequents that
group.

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 12:29, TMS320 wrote:

....

Do you simply rely upon the myth that cyclists cannot do wrong?

You're replying to an impersonator

On 25/07/2014 15:57, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 12:29, TMS320 wrote:

....

Do you simply rely upon the myth that cyclists cannot do wrong?

You're replying to an impersonator

Hmmm...

There's a lot of it about.

"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
...

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove a



hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing



instinctive about putting up a hand,



Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.



yet I have often seen claims and



reports of cyclists deliberately damaging car miiror of vehicles that



the cyclist feels has offended or insulted them in some way, such as



hooting at them.



Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip
off.



The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon impact
with a cyclist.







Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace.

In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was

deliberately caused. If cars were to disintegrate upon an impact then

there would be no protection for the occupants.

The motorist and maybe a larger item like the engine would slide along for
awhile in a pile of dust much like the deacon's masterpiece.


You psycholists do indulge in a lot of fantasy, don't you?
You might like to try living in the real world sometimes - it's not nearly
half as scary as you lot seem to think.

On 7/25/2014 9:48 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:24:07 -0300, AMuzi DID NOT WRITE:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:19:42 -0300, Bret Cahil wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:48:50 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove a

hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing

instinctive about putting up a hand,

Sometimes it's the quickest way to change directions.

yet I have often seen claims and

reports of cyclists deliberately damaging car miiror of vehicles that

the cyclist feels has offended or insulted them in some way, such as

hooting at them.

Any wing mirror -- good term BTW -- that costs more that $5 is a rip off.

The entire motor vehicle should be designed to disintegrate upon impact with a cyclist.



Many top end door mirrors cost over a thousand pounds each to replace.
In the case in question it does sound as though the damage was
deliberately caused.

In this case, caused by the motorist's actions - and from the accounts of the collision, very much
deliberate..


MISATTRIBUTED TEXT





I believe you mean "English", not "British". Here in the UKofNIandGB each country has it's own
highway code; the English one does indeed lack a specified distance.

The other countries' codes are largely similar; the only difference I've encountered is
some-bit-or-other of the code for Scotland dealing with sheep (don't ask); but I'me sure there are
others. If interested you could post on uk.legal.moderated - there's a personal friend who happens
to be an expert on many of the differences between English and Scottish laws who frequents that
group.


Some jerk with a concealed email address wrote the comments
attributed to me.
They are not mine.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2014 17:56, TMS320 wrote:

Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't know
it.

Well *I* knew it.

The only nouns in the above paragraph are "insurer", "name" and "people".
Which do you think "it" refers to?

But if another person involved in an accident asks for it, it's common
courtesy to give it and not giving it is very likely to be interpreted
as
either not being insured or an attempt to wriggle out of a claim.

An insured party can not wriggle out of a claim.

It's easy: don't advise the insurer of the incident.

That is true. And so it makes no difference whether parties exchange
insurer detail at the scene.

The cycle TP insurance I know of has no no claims bonus or premium hikes
after claims. Unlike motor insurance, then, there is nothing to lose by
sending a report.

You may immediately think "That wouldn't work".

I have no such thought.

...

I'll try again.
Depends whether bully boy bothered to give *the cyclist* the chance to
give
name and address before diving in with demands and flying fists.

It does. We don't know anything about that exchange; all we know is that
the driver wanted the cyclist to pay for the damage he (the cyclist) had
done and that the cyclist was unwilling to pay.

Are suggesting he should have been willing? The cyclist was totally correct
in refusing to pay. Or to make an offer to pay at some future date or to say
anything that could be interpreted as admitting fault. All this goes against
insurers' Ts&Cs. There is also another principle - only re-imburse for
repairs actually carried out, not to hand out beer tokens.

On 25/07/2014 19:50, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 25/07/2014 09:43, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 24/07/2014 17:56, TMS320 wrote:

Exchanging insurer name is not required. I bet most people don't know
it.

Well *I* knew it.

The only nouns in the above paragraph are "insurer", "name" and "people".
Which do you think "it" refers to?

"It" referred to your whole clause "Exchanging insurer name is not
required".

If it didn't, you are semi-literate at best.

But if another person involved in an accident asks for it, it's common
courtesy to give it and not giving it is very likely to be interpreted
as either not being insured or an attempt to wriggle out of a claim.

An insured party can not wriggle out of a claim.

It's easy: don't advise the insurer of the incident.

That is true. And so it makes no difference whether parties exchange
insurer detail at the scene.

Actually, it does.

The cycle TP insurance I know of has no no claims bonus or premium hikes
after claims. Unlike motor insurance, then, there is nothing to lose by
sending a report.

You may immediately think "That wouldn't work".

I have no such thought.

Good.

...

I'll try again.
Depends whether bully boy bothered to give *the cyclist* the chance to
give name and address before diving in with demands and flying fists.

It does. We don't know anything about that exchange; all we know is that
the driver wanted the cyclist to pay for the damage he (the cyclist) had
done and that the cyclist was unwilling to pay.

Are suggesting he should have been willing?
The cyclist was totally correct
in refusing to pay. Or to make an offer to pay at some future date or to say
anything that could be interpreted as admitting fault. All this goes against
insurers' Ts&Cs. There is also another principle - only re-imburse for
repairs actually carried out, not to hand out beer tokens.

Very true.

But he ought to have been willing - and I hope he was willing - to give
details of his name and address. Without that, it's difficult to see how
the owner of damaged property could lawfully proceed.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:44:49 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

psycholists

"A synonym for 'psycholist' is '****wit'" (â„¢ J Smith)

I take that as a real compliment coming from you.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 17:44:49 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

psycholists

"A synonym for 'psycholist' is '****wit'" (â„¢ J Smith)

I had no idea that was the case.
But, as you so kindly have gone to the trouble of pointing it out, I can now
see that you are completely right.
Thank you.