cyclists turned right when i overtook

[Deleted User]

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Thought it was a sea monster??

It is

A Norwegian Seamonster

And you get the prize for the only sensible question on this thread :rotfl:

Anyone know the origins of a Troll ?

Manxman_in_exile

Thank you Aylesbury for #539.


My only excuse for my inadvertence might be that I was trying to be generous.


But you are probably right!:rotfl:

BananaRepublic

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It may seam [sic] that way to you sew (see what I did there?), as one of that "handful of idiots", allow me to explain:

Accidents on the road that genuinely can't be anticipated or avoided are incredibly rare. In fact, they're so rare that it's safe to say that if you're involved in an accident then you DID either miss or not take account of something that could have prevented it.

Not so. Last weekend I drove to the New Forest. I turned onto the ornamental drive, and clearly there was a cycling event as there were hordes of push bikelists on the opposite side. I approached a narrow humpback bridge, with flimsy wooden fencing each side, crossed, and as I was crossing a cyclist rode onto the bridge, between me and the fencing. It was scary, due to the lack of space, and he should have given way. 100m later, I turned a bend, and saw a group of cyclists ahead. One pulled out into the middle of the road, heading directly for my car, and he was facing backwards talking to someone behind him. I was forced to do an emergency stop, and hoot loudly, to prevent a possible serious accident. There were lots of other 'oops' moments due to other cyclists riding without due care and attention.

I have a dashcam, so these two incidents are recorded, and had there been an accident, I would have been cleared.

I'm afraid I have sympathy for the OP assuming his account of the events is accurate.

Manxman_in_exile

But doesn't that tend to support Joe Horner's point?


You avoided an accident several times by being observant and being aware of what the cyclists were doing and taking appropriate action? If you hadn't there may have been accident.


Like the one in this thread...or maybe not...or maybe yes...

Richard53

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

It's a bit like the Monty Python sketch "Do you want a 10 minute argument, sir, or the full half hour?"

I've told you once ...

Joe_Horner

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

But doesn't that tend to support Joe Horner's point?


You avoided an accident several times by being observant and being aware of what the cyclists were doing and taking appropriate action? If you hadn't there may have been accident.

Exactly that.

The difference between near misses (as you had) and accidents is generally ONE of the road users concerned getting it right and anticipating / reacting to the mistakes / downright idiocy of the others well.

In your case (BananaRepublic) you noticed that there was some sort of cycling event going on, rcognised tat as a possible hazard, and would have been more alert - and likely to avoid hitting one - than someone who didn't connect "lots of bikes" with "possible hazards".

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Somewhere in the middle of the whole thread, the OP resorted to accusations that I'd reported his posts and had them deleted. When it was pointed out that the report does not say who reported a thread, and then subsequently, two other posters confirmed that they were responsible for the reporting, the OP went strangely quiet on the matter.

Yet again you are ignoring the questions that i have asked and instead attempting to "attack" me with something which is completely irrelevant.

I have already called you out for this sort of behavior many times, any intelligent person would have learned his lesson long ago

Furthermore you are misrepresenting a currently irrelevant incident which happened a long time ago. if you are going to do this you would be better off not saying anything at all. Doing this discredits you not me because it highlights the fact that you are notable to defend your comments with rational arguments. Your attempt to discredit me has failed and backfired.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

The fascinating and entertaining thing about this thread is not the subject matter itself - I think there's an almost unanimous view that the OP was at fault in the collision

Nope
there is no " almost unanimous view that the OP was at fault "
there are a wide variety of views
the ones who think that i was at fault are a wafer thin but vocal minority who have been posting again and again and again in order to obtain the majority of posts and who have been challenged by others many times (and so far failed to successfully defend their views)

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

- but the length the OP has gone to to defend his view of the collision, which is quite remarkable considering he now claims it didn't take place.

This adds absolutely nothing to your comment at all.

Incidentally i noticed that after my last post you made many attacks against me
not even bothering to wait until i replied before you made the next one

why did you do this?

surely even you are not stupid enough to think that making multiple meaningless comments somehow makes you right.

prowla

I've put on 3 stone from eating popcorn!

custardy

Could you imagine how long the thread would be if the cyclist was actually hit......

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

...highlights the fact that you are notable to defend your comments with rational arguments.

Why, thank you! I'm glad I'm notable for my rational arguments.

What was the outcome from your insurers?