cyclists turned right when i overtook

Nobbie1967

arcon5 wrote: »

Two cyclists... Changes nothing


Not colliding with the cyclist... What have I missed?


Nothing else then?

Good of you to take up the baton now that Kraken appears to have departed to continue this even more pointless argument. So you are now arguing over who the insurer would hold at fault for a collision that didn't happen:rotfl:

Carry on:T

NBLondon

On the off-chance kraken is ever coming back...


What was wrong with describing the incident as a near-miss and asking the question "If I hadn't been able to stop in time and had actually clipped the cyclist - who would be held liable?" Answers might have been broadly the same viz. insurance would end up 50/50 without any evidence as to whether the cyclist looked/signalled and was it a safe overtake to make but with the addition of good thing you did stop in time.


Actually posting the Street View link would have helped - it always does if you want other drivers to see what you saw and whether it was reasonable or not.


Still - thanks for the entertainment....

Retrogamer

As soon as you resort to calling someone names, you've already lost the argument.
Ad hominem

Silver-Surfer_2

Retrogamer wrote: »

As soon as you resort to calling someone names, you've already lost the argument.
Ad hominem

He lost it way back. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

kraken776

NBLondon wrote: »

On the off-chance kraken is ever coming back...


What was wrong with describing the incident as a near-miss and asking the question "If I hadn't been able to stop in time and had actually clipped the cyclist - who would be held liable?" Answers might have been broadly the same viz. insurance would end up 50/50 without any evidence as to whether the cyclist looked/signalled and was it a safe overtake to make but with the addition of good thing you did stop in time.


Actually posting the Street View link would have helped - it always does if you want other drivers to see what you saw and whether it was reasonable or not.


Still - thanks for the entertainment....

In the past i have come across forums where people dont like "what if" questions and to post about a hypothetical situation that did not actually happens just results in your thread getting spammed.

kraken776

Retrogamer wrote: »

As soon as you resort to calling someone names, you've already lost the argument.
Ad hominem

Nope
ad Hominem merely does nothing to support the arguments made by the person doing at and does nothing to discredit the target or his arguments.

It does not invalidate the view or other arguments the person making an ad Hominem comment makes.

It is in effect hot air.

Making 10+ pages worth of hostile comments in response to a single Ad Hominem comment however says a lot about the person.

Retrogamer

I think this poster either has genuine mental health issues, or is socially lacking and comes on here for some interesting dialogue.

Silver-Surfer_2

Retrogamer wrote: »

I think this poster either has genuine mental health issues, or is socially lacking and comes on here for some interesting dialogue.

Maybe both.

kraken776

rich13348 wrote: »

Ok time to go to sleep little baby as you appear quite cranky. Possibly get a dictionary and then a thesaurus as you clearly need both.

What is it like to be unable to respond to another persons post with anything more sophisticated that insults and irrelevancies?

rich13348

kraken776 wrote: »

What is it like to be unable to respond to another persons post with anything more sophisticated that insults and irrelevancies?

He asked himself. Also good spelling and a rich vocabulary is not are irrelevancies.