cyclists turned right when i overtook

kraken776

custardy wrote: »

When dealing with a vulnerable road user. You don't feel 2 seconds is worth it vs life/injury?
Look at the clock on what you are typing on,see how little 2 seconds is.

Once you have passed the cyclist there is no risk to the cyclist.

The only exception i can think of is if you are going slow enough that the cyclist may suddenly accelerate and go into the back of you. which would be a very rare situation and completely the fault of the cyclist.

Mercdriver

kraken776 wrote: »

Once you have passed the cyclist there is no risk to the cyclist.

The only exception i can think of is if you are going slow enough that the cyclist may suddenly accelerate and go into the back of you. which would be a very rare situation and completely the fault of the cyclist.

I admire your tenacity. For a troll you are at least persistent. Consistent you are not.

kraken776

Mercdriver wrote: »

I admire your tenacity. For a troll you are at least persistent. Consistent you are not.

If you are going to ignore the argument i have made and instead make ad hominum attacks against me you would be better off not saying anything at all.

Behaving in this way makes you look bad not me because it highlights the fact that you dont have any counter argument to my point

your attempt to make me look bad has failed and backfired

bigadaj

kraken776 wrote: »

If you are going to ignore the argument i have made and instead make ad hominum attacks against me you would be better off not saying anything at all.

Behaving in this way makes you look bad not me because it highlights the fact that you dont have any counter argument to my point

your attempt to make me look bad has failed and backfired

Mercrdivers attempts may or may not have failed, but you're doing a cracking job all on your own.

I'd hate to have to deal with you in real life, you've created a thread that has gone on for weeks, with hundreds of posts, the vast majority of which are critical of your approach but you are still arguing.

Just review the whole thread again and think about your views on driving and life in general.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

please re-read the original post.

We all read it, and it says.....drum roll....

kraken776 wrote: »

I recently had an accident with a cyclist.

There's a lack of consistency here, kraken. I'm sure you have been claiming no accident took place . You can hardly cite your original post as evidence to support a later argument when you've spent half the thread claiming that no accident occurred. You just make yourself look foolish. The original post made no mention of the second cyclist, either, so what is sun-n-moon going to gain by re-reading it? You only mentioned the second cyclist when your original story began to unravel.

I see the mathematical analysis went unanswered in the end. Were you unable to check it or just unhappy with its conclusion?

kraken776

bigadaj wrote: »

, with hundreds of posts, the vast majority of which are critical of your approach but you are still arguing.

Sigh, i have pointed this out before
It is not about the number of posts for/against me that matters.
It is the number of individual posters for/against me that matters.

The vast vast majority of the against me posts are from a small collection of repeat posters who have been repeating the same comments and often ignoring my counter points for months. The fact that they have posted 1000 times does not give their views 1000 times more weight.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

We all read it, and it says.....drum roll....


There's a lack of consistency here, kraken. I'm sure you have been claiming no accident took place . You can hardly cite your original post as evidence to support a later argument when you've spent half the thread claiming that no accident occurred. You just make yourself look foolish. The original post made no mention of the second cyclist, either, so what is sun-n-moon going to gain by re-reading it? You only mentioned the second cyclist when your original story began to unravel.

As I have pointed out many times before, the fact that i did not initially mention the second cyclist is irrelevant and cannot be held against me in any way.
How many times are you going to repeat the same failed arguments against me?

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I see the mathematical analysis went unanswered in the end. Were you unable to check it or just unhappy with its conclusion?

I did respond to that in post #591
I also asked a follow up question in post #599

Falsely claiming that i did not respond to a question/argument made was foolish.
How hard to you think it would be for me to make reference to my answer.

bigadaj

kraken776 wrote: »

Sigh, i have pointed this out before
It is not about the number of posts for/against me that matters.
It is the number of individual posters for/against me that matters.

The vast vast majority of the against me posts are from a small collection of repeat posters who have been repeating the same comments and often ignoring my counter points for months. The fact that they have posted 1000 times does not give their views 1000 times more weight.

So how many have posted in support?

You have been told by a score or more of posters that you are almost certainly in the wrong, and the 'almost' comes from the fact that your story keeps changing.

You have failed to take any responsibility that you aren't taking due care whilst driving a ton or more of metal around, a disaster in the making, whether theoretically or in practice.

rich13348

kraken776 wrote: »

also the highway code is not a statute or precedent, it is not law
I am also unaware of any section which says you should "anticipate a sudden change of direction by the cyclist".
which section says this?

The highway code is written with the laws in mind.
Rule 213 says it word for word.
Here's the link

Car_54

kraken776 wrote: »

Again re original post.
also the highway code is not a statute or precedent, it is not law

Road Traffic Act 1988, section 38(7):

"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."