cyclists turned right when i overtook

custardy

kraken776 wrote: »

I have successfully argued this case

nope.


..........................................................

Aylesbury_Duck

1.

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist

2. Your motives are all too clear.

3. There were loads of relevant hazards. You were a long way from successfully arguing your case.

4. See 2.

Aylesbury_Duck

Oh, forgot to say...."Wow, just wow". Whatever that's supposed to mean. Is it a new way of beginning posts?

Fat_Walt

NiallB wrote: »

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

Ronnie who?

custardy

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Ronnie who?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0dcv6GKNNw

Joe_Horner

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Oh, forgot to say...."Wow, just wow". Whatever that's supposed to mean. Is it a new way of beginning posts?

I think it's traditionally meant to be the post, the whole post, and nothing but the post. As in, "just wow" with nothing more to add.

Seems the OP can't get that right either :beer:

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

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.

No, you really haven't.

Your mistake here is in thinking that just because you explain something that makes that explanation valid.

You really should learn to listen to, and take on board, what people who are FAR more experienced than you point out about the situation as you've described it.

Aylesbury_Duck

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Seems the OP can't get that right either :beer:

Careful, or he'll "call you out" on your mistakes. :rotfl:

silverwhistle

I've read a fair bit of this thread but can't exactly remember if there were an accident or not. Pointless asking the OP, I suspect, as he can't get his story right either.

Joe_Horner

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Careful, or he'll "call you out" on your mistakes. :rotfl:

He can call me in, out, or shake-it-all-about for all I care, he still needs to learn what constitutes a hazard on the roads