|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] Â*... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure Â*5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely Â*or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone Â*is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance Â*for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. Stop when necessary. You're backtracking nicely. If that even appeared to be the case, I would have phrased my response(s) wrongly. I'll re-word for absolute clarity: never direct a vehicle - any vehicle - at a nearby human being at normal travelling speed. Operate the brakes and be prepared to stop. Do not assume that you can tell what the pedestrian will do, particularly with respect to the direction (if any) they take out of your path. So what's new? This is not "simply stopping" as written earlier. But the road-user must *be* *prepared* to stop and not to think themself so "clever" (or important) that they don't need to. I will repeat what I said earlier, it is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the right strategy for any eventuality. You obviously like to think you know better. It isn't difficult to see that reducing speed as rapidly and completely as possible is going to be the best tactic in the event of any looming collision forward of the vehicle. You don't need a computer to work that out. Here is some advice for you. Concentrate on your responsibilities when you command a dangerous vehicle; Unlike the cyclist who featured in the news recently (and the ones who featured in earlier news stories), I always do exactly that. I've managed to do nearly fifty years without serious incident, so I didn't need you to demonstrate that your special subject is The Bleedin' Obvious. you are not immune from the laws of statistics; and you possess no knowledge or skill that any other experienced road user does not have. You are not going to change the world. Mind your own business about anything that does not affect you. Good advice, though one marvels that you direct it me rather than at your fellow cyclists, who clearly need it, whereas I don't. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 19:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:51:58 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 17:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements. If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid? The one bringing the action, of course. Who else? As you pointed out, motor insurance claims are decided by the insurance companies out of court. Now please answer the question. I believe "Knock for Knock" is the correct term. Why did you not answer this? Because it isn't a question and it isn't relevant to the instant case. The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of ÂŁ100,000. Zzzzzzzzzz. Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder. And? Does that mean that no court ever gets it right? Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is "Yes". It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case. Prove that the court got it wrong. The burden of proof is on you. The burden to prove *your* proposition is on me? You'd better go to the library and borrow a copy of "Debating for Dummies". Did the plaintiff advertise for random strangers to commit perjury on her behalf? Did she bung the judge a few bob? Or is your objection based on a belief that cyclists must be allowed to do as they like and certainly not have to give way to a pedestrian? Ahem... QUOTE: Why did you not answer this? ENDQUOTE We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments And immediately lost the argument. You lost it a good few lines back. I assume this means you can supply evidence to support your claim about The Man From The Pru. Google Groups is your friend. Search for the strings "household insurance", "domestic insurance" and "contents insurance" in uk.rec.cycling. That should get you started. If you are trying to assert that no-one has ever claimed here that most, if not all, cyclists are covered against the injuries or losses they cause to others, you know you are fibbing. You said "We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments" All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group. Is that before or after I prove your unprovable case for you (as you seem to think is my responsibility)? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:09:31 GMT, JNugent
wrote: On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote: On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: Are you trying for a record? -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 21:18, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 20:09:31 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote: On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: Are you trying for a record? It's getting it to spin at 45rpm that's the problem. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:03:57 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester
wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 8:20:55 PM UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote: It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case. There is no indication they got it wrong in this case. The decision was in line with many similar judgments in the past. Had it not been for the action of the cyclist (over several years) causing costs to spiral upwards no one would have taken any notice of the case. Can you provide evidence for this claim? You have stated the cyclist in this wrongful lawsuit has committed numerous similar offences over "several years". Similar offenses? I've said he (or more correctly the Judge and his current own solicitors have said) that he extended the length of the case by the way he behaved as a litigant in person. This is not an offence but is very silly. The case has dragged on for nearly 4 years which is a ridiculous amount of time for something relatively trivial. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 19:48, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:51:58 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 17:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements. If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid? The one bringing the action, of course. Who else? As you pointed out, motor insurance claims are decided by the insurance companies out of court. Now please answer the question. I believe "Knock for Knock" is the correct term. Why did you not answer this? Because it isn't a question and it isn't relevant to the instant case. Once again you are the one who introduced the motor insurance analogy. Now answer the question about 50:50 faukt, The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of ÂŁ100,000. Zzzzzzzzzz. Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder. And? Does that mean that no court ever gets it right? Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is "Yes". It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case. Prove that the court got it wrong. The burden of proof is on you. The burden to prove *your* proposition is on me? You'd better go to the library and borrow a copy of "Debating for Dummies". Did the plaintiff advertise for random strangers to commit perjury on her behalf? Did she bung the judge a few bob? Or is your objection based on a belief that cyclists must be allowed to do as they like and certainly not have to give way to a pedestrian? Ahem... QUOTE: Why did you not answer this? ENDQUOTE Where did I say this? We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments And immediately lost the argument. You lost it a good few lines back. I assume this means you can supply evidence to support your claim about The Man From The Pru. Google Groups is your friend. Search for the strings "household insurance", "domestic insurance" and "contents insurance" in uk.rec.cycling. That should get you started. If you are trying to assert that no-one has ever claimed here that most, if not all, cyclists are covered against the injuries or losses they cause to others, you know you are fibbing. You said "We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments" All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group. Is that before or after I prove your unprovable case for you (as you seem to think is my responsibility)? Before, during or after it's up to you. You said "We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments" All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 21:09, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote: On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] Â*... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure Â*5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely Â*or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone Â*is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance Â*for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. Stop when necessary. You're backtracking nicely. If that even appeared to be the case, I would have phrased my response(s) wrongly. I'll re-word for absolute clarity: never direct a vehicle - any vehicle - at a nearby human being at normal travelling speed. Operate the brakes and be prepared to stop. Do not assume that you can tell what the pedestrian will do, particularly with respect to the direction (if any) they take out of your path. So what's new? This is not "simply stopping" as written earlier. But the road-user must *be* *prepared* to stop and not to think themself so "clever" (or important) that they don't need to. I will repeat what I said earlier, it is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the right strategy for any eventuality. You obviously like to think you know better. It isn't difficult to see that reducing speed as rapidly and completely as possible is going to be the best tactic in the event of any looming collision forward of the vehicle. You don't need a computer to work that out. I certainly don't need a computer to work how thick your skull is. Here is some advice for you. Concentrate on your responsibilities when you command a dangerous vehicle; Unlike the cyclist who featured in the news recently (and the ones who featured in earlier news stories), I always do exactly that. I've managed to do nearly fifty years without serious incident, So what? so I didn't need you to demonstrate that your special subject is The Bleedin' Obvious. There is no question you need lessons in the bleedin' obvious. you are not immune from the laws of statistics; and you possess no knowledge or skill that any other experienced road user does not have. You are not going to change the world. Mind your own business about anything that does not affect you. Good advice, though one marvels that you direct it me rather than at your fellow cyclists, who clearly need it, whereas I don't. You haven't even read it. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 22:14, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 19:48, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:51:58 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 17:40, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:02:07 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 21:48, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: You are tilting at imaginary windmills. It has been well-reported that the victim was held by the court to be 50% responsible for her own misfortune. It's no longer an issue. You are the one who brought up motor insurance settlements. If both parties were equally at fault who gets paid? The one bringing the action, of course. Who else? As you pointed out, motor insurance claims are decided by the insurance companies out of court. Now please answer the question. I believe "Knock for Knock" is the correct term. Why did you not answer this? Because it isn't a question and it isn't relevant to the instant case. Once again you are the one who introduced the motor insurance analogy. Now answer the question about 50:50 faukt, Ah... I see where you are going wrong. You are behaving as though both parties each had claims against the other before the civil court. But as you would know had you read and understood the reports, they *didn't*. Only the pedestrian victim has a claim before the court. Any losses or injuries allegedly caused to the defendant cyclist are not relevant, becase he hasn't made a claim. This had already been explained to you, but you obviously didn't understand. Do you see it now? whether you do or not, I shan't be explaining it a third time. The court has yet to decide on the amount of compensation and the amount for (the victim's) legal fees. She will get 50% of the damages she would otherwise have received had she not been 50% responsible for her own losses and injuries. I'm not so sure about the legal fees, but it looks as though the order will be for 100% of the victim's legal fees, hence the wilder estimates of ÂŁ100,000. Zzzzzzzzzz. Bear in mind 'The Courts' found Barry George guilty of the Jill Dando murder. And? Does that mean that no court ever gets it right? Be on notice that there may be a supplementary question if the answer is "Yes". It means the court sometimes gets it wrong, as in this case. Prove that the court got it wrong. The burden of proof is on you. The burden to prove *your* proposition is on me? You'd better go to the library and borrow a copy of "Debating for Dummies". No witty response to that? Did the plaintiff advertise for random strangers to commit perjury on her behalf? Did she bung the judge a few bob? Or is your objection based on a belief that cyclists must be allowed to do as they like and certainly not have to give way to a pedestrian? Ahem... QUOTE: Why did you not answer this? ENDQUOTE Where did I say this? Above. My quotation of "Why did you not answer this?" was a verbatim quote of your "point". We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments And immediately lost the argument. You lost it a good few lines back. I assume this means you can supply evidence to support your claim about The Man From The Pru. Google Groups is your friend. Search for the strings "household insurance", "domestic insurance" and "contents insurance" in uk.rec.cycling. That should get you started. If you are trying to assert that no-one has ever claimed here that most, if not all, cyclists are covered against the injuries or losses they cause to others, you know you are fibbing. You said "We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments" All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group. Is that before or after I prove your unprovable case for you (as you seem to think is my responsibility)? Before, during or after it's up to you. You said "We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments" All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group. The evidence has been posted. All you need to do is sort through the 1,000+ posts I cited for you. Let me know when you've read them all. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 24/06/2019 23:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/06/2019 21:09, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 19:40, TMS320 wrote: On 24/06/2019 11:38, JNugent wrote: On 24/06/2019 09:20, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 19:36, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 17:03, TMS320 wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:33, JNugent wrote: On 23/06/2019 00:14, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 20:38, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 16:15, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 13:39, JNugent wrote: On 22/06/2019 12:55, TMS320 wrote: On 22/06/2019 01:00, JNugent wrote: To say nothing of his fridge-freezer policy? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/21/cyclist-crashed-into-woman-mobile-phone-pay-compensation-london QUOTE: Hazeldean [the cyclist who ran down a pedestrian] Â*... said he was “reeling” from a verdict that would leave him bankrupt. In a statement he said: “I am of course deeply disappointed with the outcome … and concerned by the precedent that it might set for other cyclists. ENDQUOTE But surely any court decision which reinforces and emphasises the need for caution and restraint is good for society in general? Yes, drivers should not feel smug when they kill or injure Â*5800 pedestrians a year. Who is "they"? OK, drivers should not feel they have some sense of superiority over this one cyclist. I have never killed or injured anyone. Perhaps you have and are extrapolating (incorrectly) to the population level. This was a civil case, not a criminal one. Full marks. But had anyone said different? It was not from going through a red light, riding on the pavement, lack of front brake, "riding furiously" or any other sin that every cyclist is supposed to be guilty of. He attempted to avoid but failed. The method of "avoidance" he chose was inappropriate. Blasting on an air-horn doesn't make a collision less likely Â*or less dangerous. Braking hard does. I agree. Attending to a noise maker increases the vehicle operator's workload (adequately demonstrated in numerous Youtube videos). The only usefulness of noise to alert someone Â*is when it is done with enough separation in time and distance Â*for them to look, realise the situation and calmly make a course alteration. Perhaps some people have the idea that if they give a blast right on top of the recipient, it gives them a "lesson" and they won't do it again. Unlikely. And there are thousands out there that haven't had the "lesson". It might make the hooter feel better but it won't stop someone else doing it. Best to take a fatalistic view. I have found that when approaching somebody stepping out without looking it is best for them to continue in their oblivion. The worst thing is if they suddenly look up and notice because it makes them unpredictable. As you may remember, I have long advocated the banning of car-horns, bicycle bells and all similar sorts of noise-makers (ememgerncy service two-tones an obvious exception). They are rarely of any real productive use to anyone and are a considerable source of noise nuisance. Just yesterday, I slowed down, moved to the crown of the road whilst indicating left and turned left into my driveway. The female driver behind me must have felt inconvenienced by this. She was following too close (thereby forcing me to slow even more than usual in order to fursther reduce the risk of her T-boning me as I turned and felt the need to sound her horn as she eventually passed me (I was on the drive by then). Merely changing direction without changing speed (downward) He did slow down. I didn't see the report of that. is fraught with risk because the cyclist cannot know what the reaction of the victim will be. The cyclist assumed that the pedestrian would not try to get out of the way. He was wrong in that and wrong in not attempting to avoid her by simply stopping. Not necessarily. If a driver pulls out and presents a 16ft long wall in front of you, braking is the only option - if only to reduce speed of impact. But even an unpredictable pedestrian has a maximum radius of travel in a given time. Braking takes longer than tracking round and getting beyond the point where paths cross: it is better to avoid than to minimise impact. One or other or a combination of both? It is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the best strategy. Braking is always a part of the best strategy. Often it can be. Up to now you have have used the word 'stopping'. The words are synonyms. Not in the slightest. If we're lucky, that is. If we're unlucky, we run out of space before managing to brake to a necessary halt. About 10 years ago I was driving along an NSL country road. I noticed a vehicle waiting at a t-junction so I lifted and covered the brake. Had it pulled out when I first saw it there would have been plenty of time but it did a Duke of Edinburgh on me. The ABS was doing its stuff, giving me moments to decide whether to aim for the driver's door or the wheels. Fortunately, the vehicle stopped before it was halfway across the road. The other carriageway was clear so I released the brake and skirted round. Without that opportunity I have no idea whether my car would have stopped short or given the other a 5mph kiss. If you think "a necessary halt" is better than skirting round, when the opportunity exist, then I will leave it between you and your insurance company. Stop when necessary. You're backtracking nicely. If that even appeared to be the case, I would have phrased my response(s) wrongly. I'll re-word for absolute clarity: never direct a vehicle - any vehicle - at a nearby human being at normal travelling speed. Operate the brakes and be prepared to stop. Do not assume that you can tell what the pedestrian will do, particularly with respect to the direction (if any) they take out of your path. So what's new? This is not "simply stopping" as written earlier. But the road-user must *be* *prepared* to stop and not to think themself so "clever" (or important) that they don't need to. I will repeat what I said earlier, it is not possible to sit at a computer and decide on the right strategy for any eventuality. You obviously like to think you know better. It isn't difficult to see that reducing speed as rapidly and completely as possible is going to be the best tactic in the event of any looming collision forward of the vehicle. You don't need a computer to work that out. I certainly don't need a computer to work how thick your skull is. Here is some advice for you. Concentrate on your responsibilities when you command a dangerous vehicle; Unlike the cyclist who featured in the news recently (and the ones who featured in earlier news stories), I always do exactly that. I've managed to do nearly fifty years without serious incident, So what? So your peevish accusations are childish. And so nothing's new. so I didn't need you to demonstrate that your special subject is The Bleedin' Obvious. There is no question you need lessons in the bleedin' obvious. you are not immune from the laws of statistics; and you possess no knowledge or skill that any other experienced road user does not have. You are not going to change the world. Mind your own business about anything that does not affect you. Good advice, though one marvels that you direct it me rather than at your fellow cyclists, who clearly need it, whereas I don't. You haven't even read it. Run out of "witticisms", have you? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?
On 25/06/2019 01:13, JNugent wrote:
Run out of "witticisms", have you? The goalposts are about to leave the field entirely. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USEFULL HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS | datakoll | Techniques | 1 | February 19th 13 01:12 AM |
Insurance - House, Contents & Bicycles? | Craig | Australia | 2 | July 26th 05 01:44 PM |
Lance bottle contents...? | Jaybee | Racing | 8 | July 13th 05 09:35 PM |
CTC Cyclecover vs Contents Insurance | PhilO | UK | 3 | July 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Pink Bikes (contents may cause nausea) | suzyj | Australia | 6 | September 8th 04 09:16 AM |