cyclists turned right when i overtook

[Deleted User]

26 pages of pure BS, has to be one of the better Troll threads on here.

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!!!!