cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

In the op you asked.

The answer was yes.

Thirteen pages in the answer is still yes.

Maybe it's time to stop feeding you.

um no
there have been a mix of different answers.

spadoosh

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

In the op you asked.

The answer was yes.

Thirteen pages in the answer is still yes.

Maybe it's time to stop feeding you.

You know you can adjust the settings to display more posts per page dont you?

Im only on page 7. :T

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

FAIL

What you have done here is speculate facts which you can hold against me.
This is called making a straw man argument - anyone who is even minimally intelligent will see through it.

Going on to talk about a child is called emotional blackmail. It is also equally as falicious and only an idiot would not see through it.

This is why i have so little respect for the "i am at fault" croud
SO many have them have made "speculations" like this.

Oh and just to be clear

There were NO cars parked in the road - it was completely clear.
There is also nothing wrong with overtaking cyclists riding 2 abreast if the road is wide enough.

"FAIL"? How old are you? And what is "falicious"? I genuinely can't work out what you meant to type there, but it sounds tasty!

As one of the 'you are at fault' crowd, I don't seek your respect and frankly, as your character has emerged during the course of the thread, nor would I want it. Speculation is inevitable on a forum, especially when information is gradually embellished or missing entirely. If you can't deal with it, you really shouldn't have posed the question in the first place. I would have more sympathy if you hadn't immediately started calling anyone who politely disagreed with you absurd, idiotic and the like. You deserve everything you get in return.

spadoosh

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Just wanted to add another pic of the troll.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

Ignoring significant amounts of information and making up information is what idiots do

The very definition of irony. :rotfl:

Retrogamer

kraken776 wrote: »

um no
there have been a mix of different answers.

Lets leave your story aside for a moment.

The cyclist may claim he signalled and moved and you drove into him. He will claim you were negligent.

You will dispute this with your story.

The insurance company without any evidence will be unable to tell who is being honest. They will want to settle this quickly because the longer it drags on, the more it will cost them and even if it went to court (which it most certainly won't) on the balance of probabilities it will end in a split liability.

Realistically, 50/50 is best you can hope for going through insurance and going through court.

Have you had a dash cam installed since the accident? If not, i'd recommend one. There's a lot of dishonest people out there and in the event something similar happens again you can use it as evidence to verify your chain of events.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

The very definition of irony. :rotfl:

I fail to see how since i have not ignored any information

and before you say i have ignored the people who say i am at fault
no i have not
i cannot have ignored them because i have been challenging them and replying to them ALOT

kraken776

Retrogamer wrote: »

Lets leave your story aside for a moment.

The cyclist may claim he signalled and moved and you drove into him. He will claim you were negligent.

You will dispute this with your story.

The insurance company without any evidence will be unable to tell who is being honest. They will want to settle this quickly because the longer it drags on, the more it will cost them and even if it went to court (which it most certainly won't) on the balance of probabilities it will end in a split liability.

Realistically, 50/50 is best you can hope for going through insurance and going through court.

Have you had a dash cam installed since the accident? If not, i'd recommend one. There's a lot of dishonest people out there and in the event something similar happens again you can use it as evidence to verify your chain of events.

I thought split liability was based on both parties behaving in a negligent manner which contributes to the accident,

The split being what the court (ether a judges personal opinion on the day or a court precedent set in a similar case) believes the lesser neglegence should be worth being subtracted from the main at fault parties neglegence.

For example there is a court precedent which states how much not wearing your seatbelt is worth. (cant remember the case name or the set degree of negligence) for arguments sake lets say its 25%

so this means if a driver causes an accident and one of the passengers was not wearing a seat belt the award which would be 100% fault on the driver is reduced to 75% fault on the driver.

IT does not mean if the evidence suggests a 20% possibility of fault then a person is held liable for 20% of the damage.

The burden of proof in civil claims is 50%
That means if someone is 49% likely to be guilty he is not at fault
if someone is 51% likely to be guilty he is at fault

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

I thought split liability was based on both parties behaving in a negligent manner which contributes to the accident,

The split being what the court (ether a judges personal opinion on the day or a court precedent set in a similar case) believes the lesser neglegence should be worth being subtracted from the main at fault parties neglegence.

For example there is a court precedent which states how much not wearing your seatbelt is worth. (cant remember the case name or the set degree of negligence) for arguments sake lets say its 25%

so this means if a driver causes an accident and one of the passengers was not wearing a seat belt the award which would be 100% fault on the driver is reduced to 75% fault on the driver.

IT does not mean if the evidence suggests a 20% possibility of fault then a person is held liable for 20% of the damage.

The burden of proof in civil claims is 50%
That means if someone is 49% likely to be guilty he is not at fault
if someone is 51% likely to be guilty he is at fault

Let's keep it simple for you, liability and guilt are two different things.

You can be 51-100% guilty in you book and liable for 50% of the blame.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

I thought split liability was based on both parties behaving in a negligent manner which contributes to the accident,

The split being what the court (ether a judges personal opinion on the day or a court precedent set in a similar case) believes the lesser neglegence should be worth being subtracted from the main at fault parties neglegence.

For example there is a court precedent which states how much not wearing your seatbelt is worth. (cant remember the case name or the set degree of negligence) for arguments sake lets say its 25%

so this means if a driver causes an accident and one of the passengers was not wearing a seat belt the award which would be 100% fault on the driver is reduced to 75% fault on the driver.

IT does not mean if the evidence suggests a 20% possibility of fault then a person is held liable for 20% of the damage.

The burden of proof in civil claims is 50%
That means if someone is 49% likely to be guilty he is not at fault
if someone is 51% likely to be guilty he is at fault

I think the fashionable phrase for this sort of thing is: Cool story, bro'