cyclists turned right when i overtook

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I never said that threatening the claimant with excessive costs would not be illigal.
I merely said that those types of offences have to be done intentionally or knowingly and even then a reasonable excuse (such as saying you will take appropriate lawful action) is a defense.

No, only that you ought to know. Which you clearly do.

I'm beginning to wonder if this ever happened and I'm not convinced you're not trolling.

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder if this ever happened and I'm not convinced you're not trolling.

I've been assuming that for quite a while - after all, Kraken are well known for waking, just like sleeping trolls.

But he's just so fun to play with. You don't even have to make him look foolish - just prod him and he does it for you. It's a bit like dangling a bit of string in front of a cat. The cat thinks it's a big brave hunter on the prowl when really it's just dancing at your whim.

And Kraken is such a responsive puddy tat

Silver-Surfer_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I've been assuming that for quite a while - after all, Kraken are well known for waking, just like sleeping trolls.

But he's just so fun to play with. You don't even have to make him look foolish - just prod him and he does it for you. It's a bit like dangling a bit of string in front of a cat. The cat thinks it's a big brave hunter on the prowl when really it's just dancing at your whim.

And Kraken is such a responsive puddy tat

Maybe he hit the cyclist due to brake issues or lack of rear ones.

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

Some of you lot really are idiots! I'm starting to really worry about this forum

When a "new poster", who we're all asked to "be nice to", starts calling people idiotic, absurd, morons and whatever else he's come up with for (initially) polite posts suggesting he's not 100% in the right then he's going to get tackled for it.

Kraken started the abusiveness with this post:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70809758&postcount=81

where he described the posters who, up until that point, had only suggested that he might be held liable by his insurers or that maybe he could learn to anticipate similar in future as "a handful of idiots".

At the time it was about his 4th post on the forum - at least under this username. That's not typical behaviour for a genuine new user and it's perfectly reasonable to expect a backlash if you do act like that.

Try walking into a room full of strangers in real life, saying hello, then saying practically nothing else for an hour before telling them that they're a handful of idiots.

Do you really think that's going to go down well?

Aylesbury_Duck

arcon5 wrote: »

So op should stay behind indefinitely??

This poster should, yes. For everyone's safety.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

No
He was in the middle of the LANE
that is 1/4 of the way across the road

Remind me. You are saying there are houses on the left and a field on the right, correct? Was the right hand side of the road gridlocked with parked cars?

If not, I don't know how you could miss the junction and the cycle lane you refer to as being where the cyclist turns onto.

If it was gridlocked with parked cars and you couldn't see whether there was a junction coming up, do you think it was sensible to overtake two vehicles at the same time?

What if there was a child walking along the road at the time or about to get out of a car? You wouldn't see them either if you can't see the junction.

arcon5

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

This poster should, yes. For everyone's safety.

And what did this motorist do that was so different to any other motorist?

Yep, you guessed it, nothing

arcon5

Mercdriver wrote: »

Remind me. You are saying there are houses on the left and a field on the right, correct? Was the right hand side of the road gridlocked with parked cars?

If not, I don't know how you could miss the junction and the cycle lane you refer to as being where the cyclist turns onto.

If it was gridlocked with parked cars and you couldn't see whether there was a junction coming up, do you think it was sensible to overtake two vehicles at the same time?

What if there was a child walking along the road at the time or about to get out of a car? You wouldn't see them either if you can't see the junction.

If op saw an entrance it's irrelevant!
If op saw a snack bar with a cycle storage unit should she have stayed behind.

Cycle lane doesn't equal swerve across the road!


This is the kind of logic that suggests if you overtake a vehicle waiting to turn right in to a junction then the person turning in to it is at fault.

Nobbie1967

arcon5 wrote: »

And what did this motorist do that was so different to any other motorist?

Nobody really knows as the OP won't provide the additional info that might help clarify the situation. Even then we've only got one side of the story. Given that we've only heard half the story and many think the insurer will find the OP at fault suggests that this is in no way clearcut that the OP was blameless. If many think this with only the OP's version, then what will the insurer conclude when they have the cyclist's version of events?

kraken776

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

No, only that you ought to know. Which you clearly do.

I'm beginning to wonder if this ever happened and I'm not convinced you're not trolling.

I added the caveat "or should have known" the first time I said it