cycle/car accident

Norman_Castle

twhitehousescat wrote: »

mentioned over and over again , I was not on a cycle (If it looks like a cyclist and acts like a cyclist.....) , I have to abide by laws of the land unlike many cyclist I see on pavements , with headsets on and on there phones

There were no cyclists involved in your attack on another motorists vehicle so why have a go at them. Cycling on the pavement with a headset on and using a phone takes more skill than pulling up outside a post office on a moped.

On a 50 year old, 28 mph moped you don't need to signal that you are slowing down, just indicate left, other drivers will know what you are doing.

a.turner

twhitehousescat wrote: »

I was waving my arm to signal , before and AS he past , continuously


I was NOT committing criminal damage giving a hand signal , he was the one that nearly knocked me off and attempted to break my wrist

Did he really?

NBLondon

notbritishgas wrote: »

That means you are going straight ahead.

Correct - it's the signal to a police officer directing traffic - now when did anyone last see that?

Norman_Castle wrote: »

On a 50 year old, 28 mph moped you don't need to signal that you are slowing down, just indicate left, other drivers will know what you are doing.

But he's got no indicators either... Left arm out to indicate a turn/pull-in would likely be missed and if the OP is riding close to the gutter he may well end up thumping a piece of street furniture instead.

I suppose he could have done both at the same time and changed his name to twhitehelmetscat

Nasqueron

twhitehousescat wrote: »

mentioned over and over again , I was not on a cycle , I have to abide by laws of the land unlike many cyclist I see on pavements , with headsets on and on there phones

Blah blah usual nonsense, lose any sympathy when you start tarring cyclists with the same brush as people who are just riding a bike and resorting to the usual stereotypes.

Ergates

AdrianC wrote: »

He shouldn't have been able to, because you shouldn't have given him space.

And, when he did, you certainly shouldn't have sunk to the depths of criminal damage in some kind of misguided revenge...

No.... The OP didn't hit the drivers car. The car's wing mirror hit the OPs already outstretched arm. Not criminal damage by the OP, 100% the drivers fault.

Ergates

twhitehousescat wrote: »

Mr smart alec tries to overtake almost taking my right pedal/leg off , but more funnily is I completely remove his left door mirror with my (armored bike) glove


so he pulls up and starts getting gobby , saying I have to pay for mirror


I refer him back to his highway code and the fact that he did not leave sufficient space whilst trying to overtake


so whos in the right whos in the wrong ?

Him. 100%.

He hit you, not the other way around - you* don't get to clip another road user with your wing-mirror then demand they pay for the damage to your car.

*you being him, in this context

AdrianC

Ergates wrote: »

No.... The OP didn't hit the drivers car. The car's wing mirror hit the OPs already outstretched arm. Not criminal damage by the OP, 100% the drivers fault.

Let's go back to what the OP actually said first off, shall we?

twhitehousescat wrote: »

so I give the proverbial "(Right) arm up and down - "I intend to slow down or stop"

and Mr smart alec tries to overtake almost taking my right pedal/leg off , but more funnily is I completely remove his left door mirror with my (armored bike) glove

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

Blah blah usual nonsense, lose any sympathy when you start tarring cyclists with the same brush as people who are just riding a bike and resorting to the usual stereotypes.

So what is the difference between a “cyclist” and “someone who is riding a bike”?

Clue: the latter is the dictionary definition of cyclist.

shaun_from_Africa

Nasqueron wrote: »

OP is saying that is what the other driver is saying i.e. he wasn't close to the OP

I know.
Maybe I worded it wrong and should really have stated:

So he didn't come close to you yet you were able to reach his mirror!
Does the car driver think you look like this

Tokk

Ergates wrote: »

Him. 100%.

He hit you, not the other way around - you* don't get to clip another road user with your wing-mirror then demand they pay for the damage to your car.

*you being him, in this context

Not 100%, but still very much the driver primarily at fault.

If you go on holiday and leave all your windows open and doors unlocked, you haven't mitigated your risks - the burglar still shouldn't are your stuff and is still clearly at fault for doing so, but by making it much more likely you bear some responsibility too.