cyclists turned right when i overtook

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

You have taken my reference to 20M completely out of context and I suspect that you have done this deliberately.

Wasn't it you who said you only needed to be able to see 20m? hmm yes it was. You said you didn't need to see any hazards beyond that point. That would make you a very dangerous driver. I would advise that for the safety of drivers around you that you surrender your licence to DVLA, as you're incapable of driving for the conditions. You don't even look as far as the total braking distance at 30mph.

Those were your words. No context required.

[Deleted User]

Are the schools off this week? lots of new posters with unusual or implausible questions.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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:

That would be a valid point if most of those 396 posts had been posted by different people.
However they have not.
Most of the comments against me have come from a small handful of about 3 individuals who have been frequently positing and about 3 more who posted multiple times but less infrequently who have posted again and again and again. The fact that these individuals have drowned out the rest of the participants by posting again and again does not add any extra weight to their views. Therefore the 396 posts which you claim are the majority are infact a minority.

The vast majority have stated that I am ether blameless or that I may be held partially to blame by the insurer due to the lack of evidence (which is not the same as saying i am to blame

I find it very worrying that anyone would think that they could prove a point against me by stating this as anyone who is even minimally intelligent would understand what it wrong with this type of reasoning and see through it instantly.

Silver-Surfer_2

kraken776 wrote: »

That would be a valid point if most of those 396 posts had been posted by different people.
However they have not.
Most of the comments against me have come from a small handful of about 5 individuals who have posted again and again and again. The fact they these individuals have drowned out the rest of the participants by posting again and again does not add any weight to their views. Therefore the 396 posts which you claim are the majority are infact a minority.

The vast majority have stated that I am ether blameless or that I may be held partially to blame by the insurer due to the lack of evidence (which is not the same as saying i am to blame

I find it very worrying that anyone would think that they could prove a point against me by stating this as anyone who is even minimally intelligent would understand what it wrong with this type of reasoning and see through it instantly.

Or maybe, just maybe you're wrong.

Nobbie1967

kraken776 wrote: »

That would be a valid point if most of those 396 posts had been posted by different people.
However they have not.
Most of the comments against me have come from a small handful of about 3 individuals who have been frequently positing and about 3 more who posted multiple times but less infrequently who have posted again and again and again. The fact that these individuals have drowned out the rest of the participants by posting again and again does not add any extra weight to their views. Therefore the 396 posts which you claim are the majority are infact a minority.

The vast majority have stated that I am ether blameless or that I may be held partially to blame by the insurer due to the lack of evidence (which is not the same as saying i am to blame

I find it very worrying that anyone would think that they could prove a point against me by stating this as anyone who is even minimally intelligent would understand what it wrong with this type of reasoning and see through it instantly.

Some may have taken your side based on the very limited and one sided information available in your first few posts, but everyone who has read through to the 21st page of this thread has come to realise that you have little grasp of safe driving. I initially though you would be held partially at fault due to lack of evidence, but thanks to the additional evidence you supplied, it now appears fairly clear that the major fault lies with you for your lack of foresight to overtake with so many obvious hazards around.

almillar

kraken, do you know what they mean in court, when they say 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'? Especially the whole truth bit? You didn't tell the whole truth, and the Google Maps link you sent told it for you.
Someone has spent lots of money on speed bumps, the chicane, paint on the road/footpath, a fence, and indeed, further up the road I think, a cycle lane sign. You missed all of this out, indeed you told me directly there was NO cycle lane sign.
The speed limit is 30. You're allowed to do 30. But there's lots of crap on the road trying to make you go slow. There's no law against you overtaking the cyclist. Hey, I still think I might have done so if I were you, but you can remove me from your 'supporters' list. I was just trying to get the story straight and help clarify, and that, along with your attitude to other posters (the 'gang' that have been telling you you're wrong), means that I can't be bothered to continue to help you. Fair play for finally putting the link up, but as so many suspected, you probably shouldn't have overtaken.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

That would be a valid point if most of those 396 posts had been posted by different people.
However they have not.
Most of the comments against me have come from a small handful of about 3 individuals who have been frequently positing and about 3 more who posted multiple times but less infrequently who have posted again and again and again. The fact that these individuals have drowned out the rest of the participants by posting again and again does not add any extra weight to their views. Therefore the 396 posts which you claim are the majority are infact a minority.

The vast majority have stated that I am ether blameless or that I may be held partially to blame by the insurer due to the lack of evidence (which is not the same as saying i am to blame

I find it very worrying that anyone would think that they could prove a point against me by stating this as anyone who is even minimally intelligent would understand what it wrong with this type of reasoning and see through it instantly.

I'm not sure what planet you dwell on, but with all that street furniture and bumps I would have thought twice about overtaking two vehicles.

From my reading, vast majority do NOT think the same way as you. Most sensible people would do what they could do avoid any possible incident whether of their making or not. Insurance companies also assume the same, hence why they load your insurance even if the claim went in your favour. You aren't concerned about how you might avoid the collision which I believe did take place (after all, what kind of person would get so heated defending themselves on an incident that didn't exist?)and learn from the experience. You just want people to say, "There, there, it wasn't your fault." The truth hurts - a collision was avoidable but you chose not to avoid it.

prowla

I think it is the case that if you never overtake, then you'll never have an accident whilst overtaking.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

That would be a valid point if most of those 396 posts had been posted by different people.
However they have not.
Most of the comments against me have come from a small handful of about 3 individuals who have been frequently positing and about 3 more who posted multiple times but less infrequently who have posted again and again and again. The fact that these individuals have drowned out the rest of the participants by posting again and again does not add any extra weight to their views. Therefore the 396 posts which you claim are the majority are infact a minority.

The vast majority have stated that I am ether blameless or that I may be held partially to blame by the insurer due to the lack of evidence (which is not the same as saying i am to blame

I find it very worrying that anyone would think that they could prove a point against me by stating this as anyone who is even minimally intelligent would understand what it wrong with this type of reasoning and see through it instantly.

You'll be very worried then.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how many on here side with you (not many) or not, what matters is your insurer's view. Given the circumstances as you have described them, I can't see them coming up with any outcome other than one which will cost you.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

Wasn't it you who said you only needed to be able to see 20m? hmm yes it was. You said you didn't need to see any hazards beyond that point..

Nope
At no point did i say that.

If you are going to resort to taking my words out of context and adding new words to them to change their meaning then you would be better off not saying anything at all.

This is a form of stray man argument and all it does is highlight the fact that you dont have anything you can use against me.

At this point i anticipate that you will resort quoting a incomplete section of my words as a means to take them out of context and change their meaning.

I implore you not to even attempt to do this.

If you do it the only outcome is that i will humiliate you by pointing out the this fallacy.

Mercdriver wrote: »

That would make you a very dangerous driver. I would advise that for the safety of drivers around you that you surrender your licence to DVLA, as you're incapable of driving for the conditions. You don't even look as far as the total braking distance at 30mph.

Those were your words. No context required.

A whole sentence based on the straw man argument you setup.
the very fact that you wrote this suggests that you think there is a possibility that someone will be fooled by the straw man you have written.