Accident update
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Brown bin day!
Next: Bridge 1:0 Bus
From: NM on 11 Dec 2009 21:11 On 11 Dec, 20:28, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > OG <o...(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote: > > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > >news:0c924182-cf0a-4ac6-ad27-0a7bcce02d86(a)g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > Some of you may recall about three weeks ago I posted about an > > > accident my friend had where a cyclist collided with her car in > > > Catford and ended up draped across the bonnet his bike still strapped > > > to his feet. > > > That was the one where she pulled across his path and he screwed up the > > avoid, yes? > > No no no no no no no, yes. > > Or. > > It was the one where she waited perfectly positioned on her side of the > road, waiting for all traffic, including the cyclist that she had made > careful observation of, to clear the location before she turned right > into a side road. Unfortunately the cyclist completely lost his mind and > increased his speed to exceed 30mph, as he did so he lost control of the > bicycle and crossed over onto the wrong side of the road. There he hit > the car involved from the nearside by cycling in a wide arc across to > his right and back to his left to strike the bonnet of the car over the > nearside wing. Throughout this manouever he maintained his speed of over > 30mph and startled the poor dear with his excess speed and reckless > riding. > > Then he wrote a long and apologetic letter pointing out the error of his > ways. > > Any suggestion that the reports of the incident were more consistent > with a blind bint turning across the path of a cyclist that she failed > to see is a vile and unworthy suggestion. Wow, ten out of ten for creative interpretation.
From: NM on 11 Dec 2009 21:16 On 12 Dec, 01:32, Señor Chris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > JNugent wrote: > > > Does his credibility vary depending only on whether it chimes with what > > you wish to believe? Surely not? > > No, his credibility is permanently stuck at zero. The entire episode is > a complete fantasy. Evidence for this assertion?
From: The Medway Handyman on 11 Dec 2009 21:18 NM wrote: > On 12 Dec, 01:32, Se�or Chris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> JNugent wrote: >> >>> Does his credibility vary depending only on whether it chimes with >>> what you wish to believe? Surely not? >> >> No, his credibility is permanently stuck at zero. The entire episode >> is a complete fantasy. > > Evidence for this assertion? Cyclists are not good at evidence or any other rational thought. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Marc on 11 Dec 2009 21:21 NM wrote: > On 12 Dec, 01:32, Se�or Chris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> JNugent wrote: >> >>> Does his credibility vary depending only on whether it chimes with what >>> you wish to believe? Surely not? >> No, his credibility is permanently stuck at zero. The entire episode is >> a complete fantasy. > > Evidence for this assertion? Your previous messages?
From: Happi Monday on 12 Dec 2009 04:00
NM wrote: > On 11 Dec, 17:33, Happi Monday <ha...(a)munday.com> wrote: >> I think you are talking total bollox! (ie. you are making it up). >> And only a total idiot would admit liabilty. > > Well he is a cyclist so the pattern fits. I do more motoring than cycling - in hour terms, not miles. I still say you are bullshitting or simply totally self-deluded. |