cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

Laurie_Sicard-Askey wrote: »

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

On the contrary. A quick scan through all 22 pages shows who is wound up on this thread. It's been great fun. I don't believe it's a wind up at all, not on Kraken's part, anyway...

1. Kraken has his accident and comes on here for comfort, hoping that a bunch of consenting anonymous people will somehow add weight to his case.

2. That doesn't happen, with many posters believing he is at least partially to blame. Much to-ing and fro-ing, with new information about the accident emerging as it suits Kraken's version of events. Still no change to what seems the majority view.

3. Realising he's boxed himself into a corner, Kraken makes a bizarre "confession" that the accident never happened, no doubt hoping for a face-saving exit. Having seen the angry way he's defended himself over 14 pages or so, not all of us believe him.

4. If it were a hypothetical accident, I suspect Kraken would have melted away, but he continues to strongly defend himself, getting angry with others and "humiliating" us with the strength of his logic....yeah.

5. Great sport ensues. All I'm asking for is the outcome of his insurer's processes. After all, we would all benefit from knowing how blame was attributed.

almillar

There is no cycling sign anywhere.

The paint on the road is not visible from the position where the incident occurred.

There's one further out of the town, I'm not clear on where you were travelling from/to, but you at least were either going over speed bumps, or went past that sign, as far as I can see. That includes paint on a road.

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

You are clinging onto a technicality. You are perfectly entitled to go over those humps at 30, and indeed, to overtake 'over' them. I've never disputed that. But they are absolutely NOT irrelevant. If you're observing the road properly, you should take those humps as a sign to slow down, and observe more - there are likely to be pedestrians/cyclists around. Indeed, you met one of these road users. They should certainly discourage overtaking and make you think harder about doing it. You seem to be determined to ignore this.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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?

I am a bit confused by this question
This question would only make sense if there was an accident, without an accident there can be not response from any insurance company.

However I have made it clear multiple times that there was no accident.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

On the contrary. A quick scan through all 22 pages shows who is wound up on this thread. It's been great fun. I don't believe it's a wind up at all, not on Kraken's part, anyway...

1. Kraken has his accident and comes on here for comfort, hoping that a bunch of consenting anonymous people will somehow add weight to his case.

2. That doesn't happen, with many posters believing he is at least partially to blame. Much to-ing and fro-ing, with new information about the accident emerging as it suits Kraken's version of events. Still no change to what seems the majority view.

3. Realising he's boxed himself into a corner, Kraken makes a bizarre "confession" that the accident never happened, no doubt hoping for a face-saving exit. Having seen the angry way he's defended himself over 14 pages or so, not all of us believe him.

4. If it were a hypothetical accident, I suspect Kraken would have melted away, but he continues to strongly defend himself, getting angry with others and "humiliating" us with the strength of his logic....yeah.

5. Great sport ensues. All I'm asking for is the outcome of his insurer's processes. After all, we would all benefit from knowing how blame was attributed.

You have made many mistakes here.

Your mistakes are that you have stated what my thoughts and feelings are multiple times and you have stated what the motives for my actions were many times.

you absolutely cannot do this.

my thoughts feelings and motives are SUBJECTIVE
that means they exist entirely in my mind and there can be no proof regarding what they are or are not. Only i can know.

Therefore any statements which you make about them are WORTHLESS.

If i myself make statements about my thoughts, feelings, motives, knowledge ect even this does not conclusively prove anything because nobody else knows why i made the statement. but at least i KNOW the truth for CERTAIN.
ANY other person literally knows NOTHING and can know NOTHING.

The only exception to this rule (which i know of) is if someone shows knowledge of something specific, in which case it is proved that he has that knowledge.

custardy

Wow,is this hypothetical scenario still going?

Nobbie1967

kraken776 wrote: »

i KNOW the truth for CERTAIN.
ANY other person literally knows NOTHING and can know NOTHING.

This is getting quite philosophical now, you seem to be implying that the Socratic Paradox applies to everyone except you. Interesting....:rotfl:

P.S. Good use of capitalisation and bolding, that's told them!

GwylimT

kraken776 wrote: »

I am a bit confused by this question
This question would only make sense if there was an accident, without an accident there can be not response from any insurance company.

However I have made it clear multiple times that there was no accident.

There most definitely was a collision, so it was either a road traffic accident, or it was done purposely.

nicechap

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist

I attempted to overtake him and as I was doing so he turned right and collided with my left headlight. This was a very sudden movement, he literally turned sharply to the right just as I was alongside his rear.
.........................

kraken776 wrote: »

I am a bit confused by this question
This question would only make sense if there was an accident, without an accident there can be not response from any insurance company.

However I have made it clear multiple times that there was no accident.

Reminds me of a Dr Who episode where Dr confused a logic computer by saying:

"The next thing I say is the truth. The last thing I said is a lie."

sheramber

My insurance company tell me that his story is that he was turning right into the cycle lane and that I should have predicted that he would do this. I think this is absurd and unfair.

So your insurance company told you this about a non accident.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

You have made many mistakes here.

Your mistakes are that you have stated what my thoughts and feelings are multiple times and you have stated what the motives for my actions were many times.

you absolutely cannot do this.

Oh, I can. And I have. Several times. And I know I'm right.

And you're still defensive, weeks on, despite insisting the accident didn't take place! So, what stance did your insurers take?