cyclists turned right when i overtook

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.

bod1467

kraken776 wrote: »

This is a form of stray man argument

What's a stray man? Does he ride bikes and change direction without signalling?

BeenThroughItAll

kraken776 wrote: »

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.



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.

Before you start trying to humiliate others who you perceive are manipulating your words by trying to be clever with your responses, might I suggest you learn to:
a) spell
b) correctly form sentences
c) proof read your work before submitting it


I fear if you do not do so, the only one being humiliated here will be you.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

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.



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.

My God, this is still going on.

You used the minimum reading distance test in the context of being able to see hazards within that distance. This is foolish. Especially when you only have a limited amount of time to react and stop. All this on a road that has road calming measures that suggest plenty of caution is required.

If being sensible is a straw man, then so be it. I'd rather be arguing straw men than be a maverick fool who is dead or has injured or killed someone else.

You need to realise that irrespective of supposed fault it is the responsibility of all road users to do everything they can to avoid an incident.

kraken776

almillar wrote: »

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.

I have already explained this.
When telling a story there are a absolutely massive number of things a person could say. theirfore not saying things cannot be held against someone.

almillar wrote: »

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.

There is no cycling sign anywhere.
The paint on the road is not visible from the position where the incident occurred.
The chicane was too far away to be relevant at the point where i tried to overtake.

The fence does not mean anything. I could not have known that there was a cycle lane there based on this alone and even if this was not the case it was too far away at the point of the incident to be relevant.

The humps are also irrelevant because they in no way make the act of overtaking more dangerous. they literally add no danger at all.

almillar wrote: »

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.

I am sorry to hear that

MABLE

I give other road users plenty of warning when I intend to turn right but you still get some idiots who still insist in overtaking you even though you have your right arm fully extended.

Sicard

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Before you start trying to humiliate others who you perceive are manipulating your words by trying to be clever with your responses, might I suggest you learn to:
a) spell
b) correctly form sentences
c) proof read your work before submitting it


I fear if you do not do so, the only one being humiliated here will be you.

Come on, matey. The OP may be many things, but to pick someone up on their spelling is just a mite crass. Some people can spell and some can't, and to do a spell-check every time one posts is, well, trivial. Who made you the spelling police?

BeenThroughItAll

Laurie_Sicard-Askey wrote: »

Come on, matey. The OP may be many things, but to pick someone up on their spelling is just a mite crass. Some people can spell and some can't, and to do a spell-check every time one posts is, well, trivial. Who made you the spelling police?

I assume you consider the OP's aggressive and insulting posts not to be a problem then? Certainly not 'a mite crass'?

My point was that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the OP wants to pick people up for playing with their words, they should make damn sure they understand how to properly manipulate the English language themselves.

Aylesbury_Duck

Kraken, I'm not sure why you have such a fondness for promising to humiliate people? You do realise that people aren't likely to feel humiliated when they're posting anonymously and the audience is anonymous, don't you? No one is going to be humiliated by your posts, not least because most of what you write is not sensible.

I see you're still peddling the myth that the speed humps and other features of the street are irrelevant, when it's been pointed out to you many times that they are absolutely relevant beyond doubt.

Given that it's been a few weeks since you began this thread, do you have any response from the insurer yet? Do they take your view that you are in no way to blame for the accident, or, as some of us on here believe they will, have they concluded that you were at least partly to blame?

Sicard

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Kraken, I'm not sure why you have such a fondness for promising to humiliate people? You do realise that people aren't likely to feel humiliated when they're posting anonymously and the audience is anonymous, don't you? No one is going to be humiliated by your posts, not least because most of what you write is not sensible.

I see you're still peddling the myth that the speed humps and other features of the street are irrelevant, when it's been pointed out to you many times that they are absolutely relevant beyond doubt.

Given that it's been a few weeks since you began this thread, do you have any response from the insurer yet? Do they take your view that you are in no way to blame for the accident, or, as some of us on here believe they will, have they concluded that you were at least partly to blame?

Has no one cottened on yet? He's winding you all up.