cyclists turned right when i overtook

Aylesbury_Duck

Kraken, you're not masquerading as "emmasaunders" on the "Cyclist collision at mini roundabout" thread, are you? The similarities in posting style are striking!

"I've had an accident with a cyclist, do you think I'm at fault?"
"Yes"
"You're all idiots!" etc, etc.

For pages and pages.

NBLondon

kraken776 wrote: »

In fact I would like you to appolgise for thinking that I would not point this out.

I was quite aware that the statistics quoted are not a reliable indicator of posting quality... There's an even simpler explanation that on other areas of these forums, thanks are used not necessarily to indicate agreement but merely that a particular post has been read and this therefore can lead to ratios well above 500%. You would have to analyse the pattern of thanks in a given thread to have an indication of whether it was a reliable indicator and then include the possibility of cliquing.


My final post in that statement is a deliberate non-sequituur introduced for comic effect and the responses indicate that it was successful, at least in part.


I have no need to appolgise [sic] except to those who wish this thread would end but I would like to thank you for taking the bait and entertaining many of us once again.


Perhaps you'd like to help emmasaunders (once and again) out too?

BeenThroughItAll

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?

When worlds collide. Or threads... one of those at any rate.

custardy

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?

Nothing happened. It was a hypothetical incident......

almillar

yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares

kraken does. That was his question. Until he revealed that it was hypothetical. Everyone in the forum is banging on about blame because posters ask 'did I do wrong?', 'what else could I have done?', 'what will the police/insurance do?', then SOME posters don't like the advice they're given...

Joe_Horner

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone

Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.

kraken776

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.

UM
that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

furthermore describing overtaking here as "reckless" does not magically make it so.

By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question discredits you not me because it highlights the fact that your view cannot be supported by rational arguments and will not stand up to any scrutiny

well done.

Richard53

kraken776 wrote: »

By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question

"Reckless, adj. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless"


That explains what is wrong.


Sorry, what would have been wrong, had the incident ever happened.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

You yourself provided plenty of reasons not to overtake when you (eventually) provided the streetview. We can all see them.
You were reckless. Why else did you have an accident that was your fault?

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

UM
that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

You posted a streetview link, I stood on the (virtual) road and moved from one end to the other of the stretch in question.

As a very experienced driver who has never come close to hitting a cyclist (imaginary or otherwise), I easily identified at least half a dozen features that made overtaking there potentially unsafe. I seem to remember listing them for your help at the time but really CBA to go back and look for that post.

Lots of other experienced drivers on here found similar lists of hazards and said they would'nt have overtaken there. That was with a low resolution streetview look at the place. I have very little doubt that, if any of us were driving it for real, there would have been more.

You can keep saying it was a safe place to overtake as much as you like, but the clear photographic evidence proves that it isn't. Those are undeniable facts with evidence to support them.

Your unsupported (except by your own repetition) assertion that it was safe is therefore either lying (ie: you know it was risky but did it anyway) or shows a serious deficiency in your approach to driving if you genuinely didn't see those hazards.