cyclists turned right when i overtook

bigadaj

This is a bit like inverse trolling.

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

After the near miss he cycled along the pavement on the opposite side of the road going in the same direction he had been traveling in all along.

This is one of the benefits of actually not having an accident on this occasion.
Had I hit him it would have interrupted his course of conduct and I may never have discovered why he swerved for no apparent reason.
As it is i was able to observe his behavior afterwards and so learned that he did it so that he could get to the pavement on the other side of the road and cycle along that instead. This action of course requires an explanation in itself and i will never know why he wanted to do this.

It will soon be Xmas cracker time.

Q. Why did the cyclist cross the road?

A. To get to the other side.

buglawton

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist
I attempted to overtake him and as I was doing so he turned right.../QUOTE]

Kraken I think you put many of us off the scent by saying the words "he turned right" and you initially omitted mention that he did this to get onto the opposite pavement.

Anyway the reason that you're getting so many foolish replies is, no one can answer your question. Your insurer may dispute this, the cyclist may claim that, etc. Cyclist won't submit their cam footage if it shows he didn't look round, and only a court could order it, at which point cyclist will claim cam was not active at the time so no footage.

'Tis a curious feature of discussion boards that if no one is able to give a clear answer, 'trolls step in where angels fear to tread'.

Car_54

buglawton wrote: »

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist
I attempted to overtake him and as I was doing so he turned right.../QUOTE]

Kraken I think you put many of us off the scent by saying the words "he turned right" and you initially omitted mention that he did this to get onto the opposite pavement.

You'll find he put us farther off the scent when he told us in a subsequent post that the whole incident was fictional.

Or maybe he put us back on the scent of a troll ...

buglawton

OP should've said 'incident' rather than 'accident' which later became 'near miss'. Give a troll an inch and he'll take a yard.

Aylesbury_Duck

Oh, the accident happened alright. It only became hypothetical when the OP realised he was in the wrong and needed a face-saving way out.

The OP took a chance, tried a risky overtake despite all the visible hazards and caused a collision. That's really all there is to it. He didn't get the answers he wanted and 25 pages of self-justification ensued.

Sicard

bod1467 wrote: »

I had hoped, obviously somewhat forlornly, that this thread had died.

So did I. So now I've unsubscribed.

bod1467

I hadn't even subscribed

NiallB

Don't you realise who the OP is? He's RONNIE PICKERING!!!!

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Oh, the accident happened alright. It only became hypothetical when the OP realised he was in the wrong and needed a face-saving way out.

The OP took a chance, tried a risky overtake despite all the visible hazards and caused a collision. That's really all there is to it. He didn't get the answers he wanted and 25 pages of self-justification ensued.

Wow
Just WOW!

You have made many mistakes in this post
Mistakes which you have made MANY times before and which i have called you out for MANY times before.

You really do never learn do you.

MISTAKE NUMBER ONE

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Oh, the accident happened alright.

This statement is incorrect was no accident.

The mistake you have made here is that you are making absolute statements of fact which you did not witness and which cannot be proved by the evidence available to you.

I expect that you will respond to this by quoting my first post in which I said there was an accident and completely ignore the fact that I have corrected this detail and consistently said that there was no accident ever since. Doing this would be selectively ignoring information which is another mistake you have made many times and if you do this i will call you out for it, AGAIN.

MISTAKE NUMBER TWO

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

It only became hypothetical when the OP realised he was in the wrong and needed a face-saving way out.

The mistake you have made here is that you are making a statement about my state of mind and my motives. You cannot do this because my state of mind is entirely subjective, only I know what it is.

I actually believe that i have done absolutely nothing wrong. A opinion supported by the many posters some of whom have pointed out that those who say i did do something wrong are irrational.

I expect that you will respond my insisting that your assertions about my motive and state of mind is true and if you do I will respond by calling you out for this AGAIN.

MISTAKE NUMBER THREE

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

The OP took a chance, tried a risky overtake despite all the visible hazards and caused a collision.

Every single hazzard which has been suggested was ether
1) Not visible
2) No present at the location of the incident
3) In no way a causative or possible causative factor
I have successfully argued this case and explained the reasons why one of the above 3 statements apply to every single hazard anyone has listed.

You mistake here is that you have repeatedly ignored the posts where I have explained why there was no hazard and no reason not to overtake.

I most recently recapped why all of the hazards were not relevant in post #470.
You completely ignored these as well.

MISTAKE NUMBER FOUR

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

He didn't get the answers he wanted and 25 pages of self-justification ensued.

You have made two mistakes here
the first is that you have repeated the mistake of making statements about my own subjective state of mind (wow twice in a single post)
the second is that you are ignoring that fact that many posters have agreed with me.