cyclists turned right when i overtook

Richard53

tho wrote: »

He also says several times that it did. Check the very first line in the opening post.

"I recently had an accident with a cyclist"

I don't need to check anything, having been a follower of this thread from the start. He said he did, then he said he didn't, and then he started getting hostile with people who said he did, claiming that he had been very clear in several posts that he was only seeking theoretical answers to something that might have happened but didn't. The OP has claimed both scenarios with equal conviction. I think the balance of probabilities is that an accident nearly happened but didn't, but the OP got as irate as if it had and needed to vent. Or something. It's hilarious, whatever, but any comments dealing with the substance of the 'incident' are pretty much unnecessary.

wapow

Grow Up? Haha! Rich coming from you. What's the need to attack the OP? Cos he got "aggressive" with people? So you have to react too? 33 pages of people talking crap at the OP. That's what I gleaned from the few pages I did read.


Maybe you should grow up instead of being baiting into this thread and posting useless comments at the OP, rather than discussing the scenarios he may or may not have encountered.


I hope you don't have any children or pets under your care, 'cos child or animal services would need to monitor you 24/7 albeit you end up clubbing them to death.

Mercdriver wrote: »

If you can't be arsed to read the whole thread, you have no place making judgements about those who post in it. Grow up. I hope you never end up being called for Jury service. You'd need an attention span of longer than 10 minutes.

Billy_Bullocks

Mercdriver wrote: »

If you can't be arsed to read the whole thread, you have no place making judgements about those who post in it. Grow up. I hope you never end up being called for Jury service. You'd need an attention span of longer than 10 minutes.

Let's hope you're never on one where there's a Section 3ZB offence.

Mercdriver

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Let's hope you're never on one where there's a Section 3ZB offence.

I've done Jury service twice thank you.

Mercdriver

wapow wrote: »

Grow Up? Haha! Rich coming from you. What's the need to attack the OP? Cos he got "aggressive" with people? So you have to react too? 33 pages of people talking crap at the OP. That's what I gleaned from the few pages I did read.


Maybe you should grow up instead of being baiting into this thread and posting useless comments at the OP, rather than discussing the scenarios he may or may not have encountered.


I hope you don't have any children or pets under your care, 'cos child or animal services would need to monitor you 24/7 albeit you end up clubbing them to death.

you're raving as well as childish I see.

Mercdriver

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Let's hope you're never on one where there's a Section 3ZB offence.

Oh ad which poster did you used to be? I think I might know. Not DM. Someone that might have worn a uniform perhaps. Slim Walt perhaps.

kraken776

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Obviously this accident happened otherwise why would the OP go off on one about suing insurance companies and escalating to the high court to intimidate the claimant not to pursue? That spanned a couple of pages and would have been totally superfluous to the claim being entirely hypothetical.

.

Sigh, I though aylesbury duck was the only person who is stupid enough to think that there is any way to know what happened based on my actions on this thread.

OINK OINK

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

My point exactly, but something kraken desperately tried and failed to dispute, several times. We can take it as a fact that it happened.

Nope,
I did not try and fail to dispute it several times.
I disputed it several times and succeeded every single time.

I disputed it with an argument which is so strong that you absolutely could not dispute it and to fail to understand this would mean that you are exceptionally stupid. Yet in spite to this you have tried many times and still failed to understand why any attempts to dispute it are futile.

OINK OINK

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I've no need. That "sentence" you mashed together does it for me.

That is called a typo, it proves nothing.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I do. Until there's an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary, which in your case, occurred a few pages into this thread.

Where is this evidence,
Can you cite specific examples and explain why these prove what you are claiming?
note - any logical fallacies which you make will be pointed out.
note - ignoring any counter arguments i make will be later pointed out.

kraken776

Strider590 wrote: »

I don't think it's that simple, because cyclists have the right to use any part of the lane they are in, they don't have to hug the left and they don't have to indicate to move within their lane (and I don't mean cycle lane)....

I did make in clear in my OP that i moved all the way into the opposite lane.