cyclists turned right when i overtook

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.

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.