Who is liable for the damage?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:50:28 -0700, NM wrote:

On 24 Oct, 10:12, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
NM wrote:
My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of Doug's
road, whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter a
side road, 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 but going in her opinion far too
fast for the amount of traffic and the general congestion of the area.

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 however the cyclist made the
assumption she was going to continue across his path so anchored up
and lost control, he came to a stop just as he collided with the car.

"I pulled out from a junction without looking properly, and took out a
cyclist who went over my bonnet. How can I wriggle out of accepting
blame for this collision?"

Daniele

She isn't wriggling out of the blame, of course she shares some blame but
the cyclist is the one who caused the damage so he must be responsible for
that in some part, if he considers she was guilty of careless driving,
which is what you are implying, then he is free to ask the police to take
action, I wonder why he didn't.

Perhaps he isn't a silly **** like your hypothetical driver.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:50:28 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

She isn't wriggling out of the blame, of course she shares some blame
but the cyclist is the one who caused the damage so he must be
responsible for that in some part, if he considers she was guilty of
careless driving, which is what you are implying, then he is free to
ask the police to take action, I wonder why he didn't.

Perhaps he'd had experience before. When I got knocked off in similar
circumstances (woman in car turned right in front of me) with 3
witnesses to say it was her fault and with her "I thought you'd seen
me" statement to demonstrate she hadn't the slightest idea what the
rules of the road are (apart from the unwritten "cyclists come second
regardless of the circumstances" which some non-cycling motorists
observe faithfully) the police still took no action.

--

Pete

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:50:28 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

She isn't wriggling out of the blame, of course she shares some blame
but the cyclist is the one who caused the damage so he must be
responsible for that in some part, if he considers she was guilty of
careless driving, which is what you are implying, then he is free to
ask the police to take action, I wonder why he didn't.

I think you'll find it's not as simple as that. I see an awful lot of
self-excusing in the account as reported here. The fact that the
driver considered the cyclist was moving "too fast" (a value judgment
with no objective basis) is simply distraction. The driver failed to
observe, that precipitated the collision. Whether the cyclist should
bear some of the blame for it, I could not say, but there is no rule
which says you should be able to stop if a car travelling the other
way suddenly decides to cross your path.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:18:53 +0100, Bill
wrote:

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

A very good example of why cyclists should all have a basic, 3rd party,
level of insurance. There would still be ill feelings after an accident
but at least no one would be seriously out of pocket.

The cyclist may well be covered by his household insurance, but it's
irrelevant: the driver commenced a manoeuvre without first ensuring
that it was safe, thus precipitating a collision in which the driver
was at close to zero risk of injury and the cyclist was at significant
risk of injury. All the self-justifying twaddle wrapped around it does
not actually change that simple fact. So what if the cyclist was
unable to read the driver's mind so did not know the driver had
decided to abort the manoeuvre?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

On 24 Oct, 22:03, NM wrote:
On 24 Oct, 15:51, BrianW wrote:





On 24 Oct, 14:58, NM wrote:

On 24 Oct, 13:23, BrianW wrote:

On 24 Oct, 08:09, NM wrote:

My friend, in Catford strangely enough almost at the end of Doug's
road, whilst driving her small shopping trolly car went to enter a
side road, 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 but going in her opinion far too
fast for the amount of traffic and the general congestion of the
area.

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 however the cyclist made the
assumption she was going to continue across his path so anchored up
and lost control, he came to a stop just as he collided with the car.

The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those stupid
toe grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on the floor, he
ended up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her car still wearing
the cycle with resultant damage to the car's panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

Could I offer your friend some free legal advice? Feel free to pass
it on to her:

1. Get your ****ing eyes tested
2. Try looking left and right *before* pulling out of a side road
3. Don't try to blame others for your **** driving.

HTH.

You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.

I'm afraid I'm always rude to trolls and idiots.

Because you can't manage a reasoned argument I suspect.

Bless. Incidentally, which one are you being in this thread - a troll
or a ****witt? Or both?

On 24 Oct, 16:32, (Steve Firth) wrote:
NM wrote:
You ignorant pig. why do you find it necessary to be so rude.

Indeed, how dare he be rude to some ****ing stupid bitch who doesn't
give a **** about the safety of other road users. A ****ing stupid bitch
who hopes that she can strong-arm her victim into paying for the damage
that was a consequence of her negligence. The cheek of the man to
declare that a ****ing stupid blind bitch needs to get her ****ing
stupid blind eyes tested before she gets behind the wheel of a car and
that she should ****ing well look where she's driving before she kills
someone next time.

I'm just glad that he didn't wish the aforesaid ****ing stupid blind
bitch a session in a pit full of broken glass before being dragged down
the road behind a posse of cyclists who have chosen the road most
covered in dog **** for the experience. Maybe if he'd also asked for the
closet racist supporter of the same ****ing stupid blind bitch to be
subject to the same treatment that would have been approaching rude. But
I doubt it.

BTW, how rude is trying to a kill a cyclist using a car as a weapon?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Sorry, Mr Morgan, but I have a low tolerance of ****tard drivers who
cause collisions by not looking and then seek to blame someone else.
Particularly since almost being killed earlier this year ... by a
****tard driver who caused a collision by not looking and is now
seeking to blame me.

Peter Grange wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:28:15 +0100, John Wright ""john\"@no spam
here.com" wrote:

LSMike wrote:

Ooh, look at the bias. You clearly have no understanding of how
clipless pedals work, why they are a good thing, or why your comments
are an uninformed red herring. As soon as I hear a driver talking
about cyclists jumping red lights, I get bored by the bigotry and
ignorance. They always ignore the elephant in the room, that of all
the drivers that go through red traffic lights. 1 in 10 car drivers
and 1 in 5 bus drivers as found by the RAC.

While 99.9% of cylclists ignore them.

jeez, if I've told you once I've told you a million times about
exaggerating.

:-)

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

BrianW wrote:


Sorry, Mr Morgan, but I have a low tolerance of ****tard drivers who
cause collisions by not looking and then seek to blame someone else.
Particularly since almost being killed earlier this year ... by a
****tard driver who caused a collision by not looking and is now
seeking to blame me.

It seems to be an increasing problem on the roads - people who are too
stupid to observe properly before making a manouever. It started as far
as I'm aware at roundabouts[1] where giving way to traffic on the
roundabout is now a thing of the past. It's now common at side roads and
even when people are entering or leaving their drive. Just swing the
wheel over, no indication, no observation and head where they want to
be.

My drive to work takes me down a lane with several drives opening onto
it. I can fairly guarantee nowadays that at one of the driveways someone
will pull out without looking right.

In the event of a collision caused by the prat who chose not to look
before moving off/across/into traffic the driver always claims that the
person who hit them was "going too fast". It seems they think this is a
get out of jail free card.

The cyclist did make a serious mistake. He should have screamed the
place down and demanded an ambulance. That would have ensured a police
presence and possibly got the silly stupid bitch arrested.


[1] Or possibly it really started with those on motorways who don't look
or indicate before changing lanes or exiting a slip road.

Steve Firth wrote:


In the event of a collision caused by the prat who chose not to look
before moving off/across/into traffic the driver always claims that the
person who hit them was "going too fast". It seems they think this is a
get out of jail free card.

The cyclist did make a serious mistake. He should have screamed the
place down and demanded an ambulance. That would have ensured a police
presence and possibly got the silly stupid bitch arrested.


Steve Firth defending a cyclist, shock horror!

Al C-F wrote:
Bill wrote:
In message
,
NM writes


The problem was his feet were clamped to the bike with those stupid
toe grip racing thingys thus he couldn't put his feet on the floor,

So he was not in full control of his vehicle? If you can't put your
feet on the ground to steady your self quickly in an emergency it
sounds very suicidal to me.

he
ended up uninjured sitting across the bonnet of her car still wearing
the cycle with resultant damage to the car's panel and paintwork.

Why should he not pay for the damage? He argues it's her fault and of
course, as is normal, he has no insurance.

A very good example of why cyclists should all have a basic, 3rd
party, level of insurance. There would still be ill feelings after an
accident but at least no one would be seriously out of pocket.

1. This is not an appropriate example
2. Many (most?) cyclists are covered by their household insurance

....for what?

Loss of / damage to the bike or against any third party risks?