cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

It's funny, but the more you write, the more it is clear that you do not understand what constitutes safe driving behaviour. I think it's pretty likely that most of the posters on this thread would have avoided the incident with the cyclist as they can see that there are many hazards that would make an overtake unsafe. The fact that you still can't see this merely proves a lack of insight on your part. No amount of bluster and name calling will change that, but it's funny watching you try:rotfl:

Carry on:T

Im a bit confused about why you have used the :rotfl: and :T symbols after this and many other posts of embarrassing yourself

kraken776

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Yoicks. Twenty pages later.

Just count yourself very lucky you didn't kill the bloke. Leave it at that.

Please.

This is the second time this comment has been made

so ill just make something very clear

The only person is is lucky is the cyclist
He could have been killed because he didn't look or signal.
The only consequence for me would have been damage to my car which i would have claimed from the dead mans estate.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Everything beyond the boundary of Kraken's car seems to be dismissed as "IRRELIVENT". He is totally incapable of reading anything into the wider context of the environment he's in.

Driveways and concealed entrances - irrelevant.
Speed humps - irrelevant.
Width restriction - irrelevant.
Second cyclist - irrelevant.
Cycle lane - irrelevant.
Cycle lane gate - irrelevant.

Just what is relevant Kraken? Let me guess. Just the cyclist's behaviour? Of course...

Would you please explain how each ot these are relevant and make a argument that is strong enough to show that i was at least driving carelessly.

Oh

if you result to insults, selectively ignoring information, making up facts, exaggerating or making clearly irrational judgments i am just going to humiliate you (again) by pointing it out.

Aylesbury_Duck

Kraken, I refer you to the majority of 396 posts over the last 20 pages. Everything you need to prove your careless driving can be found there. It's been quite conclusive. You've not accepted anything anyone has said for 396 posts, so I doubt you'd be willing to learn anything from yet another post conclusively pointing out your shoddy driving.

Please continue to humiliate me, it hurts a lot. :rotfl:

BeenThroughItAll

kraken776 wrote: »

if you result to insults, selectively ignoring information, making up facts, exaggerating or making clearly irrational judgments i am just going to humiliate you (again) by pointing it out.

Insults? Ignoring points? Exaggerating?

Ever heard the phrase 'Pot calling the kettle black', chum?

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

This is the second time this comment has been made

so ill just make something very clear

The only person is is lucky is the cyclist
He could have been killed because he didn't look or signal.
The only consequence for me would have been damage to my car which i would have claimed from the dead mans estate.

Can you claim when you're in prison?

Silver-Surfer_2

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Insults? Ignoring points? Exaggerating?

Ever heard the phrase 'Pot calling the kettle black', chum?

At least he's stayed clear of regular oil changes and BMWs.

BeenThroughItAll

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

At least he's stayed clear of regular oil changes and BMWs.

True. Small mercies!

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

At least he's stayed clear of regular oil changes and BMWs.

irrelevant







Bollox, I think it's contagious!

Nobbie1967

kraken776 wrote: »

Im a bit confused about why you have used the :rotfl: and :T symbols after this and many other posts of embarrassing yourself

Because I'm laughing at you and cheering you on to provide more entertainment. Not too difficult, even for the hard of understanding amongst us?

:rotfl::T