Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 2 Dec 2009 09:14 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nna43F3mvr14U6(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>> Let's - just for a moment - assume the cyclist caused the collison... > >> Why assume the least likely option? > > I'm not. You did though, and I am sure you are aware when there is a collision between a cyclist and another vehicle it is most likely that the other vehicle's driver who is at fault. Given that motorists seem to love to establish who is to blame (rather than avoiding the possibility of having accidents in the first place) I would have thought that if you were going to make assumptions, you would have selected the most likely, not the least likely. But then again, perhaps this is something which drivers generally do not want to admit. Ho Hum...
From: NM on 2 Dec 2009 10:12 On 2 Dec, 13:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > > >>> Even one example is enough to make you a liar. I have 3rd party > >>> insurance for my cycling, as do all members of CTC. > >> And in the event of an accident, if you chose to ride off without > >> giving any information, how easy would it be to trace you? > > It would be (in the vast majority of cases) rather daft for the cyclist > > to ride off without exchanging details with the driver as it would not > > help when the cyclist decides to make a compensation claim. > > Let's - just for a moment - assume the cyclist caused the collison... Don't be daft, we all know that can never happen.
From: mileburner on 2 Dec 2009 10:22 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:ed71e5e1-127e-43b0-bb2a-9d57cbd52d0b(a)o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Dec, 13:42, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >> >>> Even one example is enough to make you a liar. I have 3rd party >> >>> insurance for my cycling, as do all members of CTC. >> >> And in the event of an accident, if you chose to ride off without >> >> giving any information, how easy would it be to trace you? >> > It would be (in the vast majority of cases) rather daft for the cyclist >> > to ride off without exchanging details with the driver as it would not >> > help when the cyclist decides to make a compensation claim. >> >> Let's - just for a moment - assume the cyclist caused the collison... > > Don't be daft, we all know that can never happen. It does happen, but only in about 1 in 10 of collisions.
From: Tony Dragon on 2 Dec 2009 10:48 mileburner wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7nn96lF3mvr14U4(a)mid.individual.net... >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >>>>> Even one example is enough to make you a liar. I have 3rd party >>>>> insurance for my cycling, as do all members of CTC. >>>> And in the event of an accident, if you chose to ride off without >>>> giving any information, how easy would it be to trace you? >>> It would be (in the vast majority of cases) rather daft for the cyclist >>> to ride off without exchanging details with the driver as it would not >>> help when the cyclist decides to make a compensation claim. >> Let's - just for a moment - assume the cyclist caused the collison... > > Why assume the least likely option? > > Why not assume that the collision was with a pedestrian, & the cyclist decided to leave (it does happen). -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 2 Dec 2009 10:50
mileburner wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7nna43F3mvr14U6(a)mid.individual.net... >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >>>> Let's - just for a moment - assume the cyclist caused the collison... >>> Why assume the least likely option? >> I'm not. > > You did though, and I am sure you are aware when there is a collision > between a cyclist and another vehicle it is most likely that the other > vehicle's driver who is at fault. Given that motorists seem to love to > establish who is to blame (rather than avoiding the possibility of having > accidents in the first place) I would have thought that if you were going to > make assumptions, you would have selected the most likely, not the least > likely. > > But then again, perhaps this is something which drivers generally do not > want to admit. > > Ho Hum... > > You must be right as cyclists have never been known to cause accidents, have they? -- Tony Dragon |