Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 07:12 x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: >> > Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the context of > someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous situation. > > Most other people understood that it was a starting point for action, why > didn't you? > > You are being disingenuous. :( As you do not seem to have read my previous post, I repeat it here: "Not to me, because we were also treated to this a wee bittie earlier in the thread: 'If someone is crushed by a lorry after pulling away from traffic lights then they are the architect of their own misfortune' Soon after that we got: 'But the general thrust is quite simple. The lorry is bigger than the cyclist. Keep clear.' In other words, keep clear from lorries, if you get crushed its your own fault. The perfectly reasonable response to that is that you cannot always keep clear of them." You, bitsy and a few others keep repeating the same nonsense. Do you not read the replies to your emails? I'm not familiar with urd. Are you two their resident trolls?
From: Rob Morley on 21 Dec 2007 07:15 In article <FfKdnRkNJ8JDNfbaRVnyhgA(a)bt.com>, Brimstone brimstone520-ng01(a)yahoo.co.uk says... > Thank you for demonstrating my point. > I won't ask you to elaborate, because I can't be bothered with any more of the tedious exchanges that seem to pass for discussion around here.
From: Brimstone on 21 Dec 2007 07:39 raisethe wrote: > x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: >> raisethe wrote: >>> MrBitsy wrote: >>>> Rob Morley wrote: >>> , Brimstone >>>>> says... >>>>> >>>>>> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which >>>>>> they are not even faintly responsible? >>>>>> >>> >>> <megasnip> >>> >>> >>> If I had >>>>> been squashed, would it have been my fault? >>>> >>>> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this >>>> thread has been this ... >>>> >>>> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save >>>> yourself'. >>> >>> Not when the question being responded to asks who is responsible. A >>> word of advice: read in full the post you are replying to. >> >> No, again you misread or misunderstand. I said "faintly responsible". >> Primary responsibility lies with the dozo making the initial foul >> up. The person about to be crushed can also shoulder some of the >> responsibility because they either put themselves in danger or >> failed to remove themselves from danger. >> >> > > What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have > crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly responsible? > Please explain what you mean by that? I don't recall seeing the post in which you described the incident. Care to repost?
From: spindrift on 21 Dec 2007 07:52 On 21 Dec, 12:39, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > raisethe wrote: > > x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: > >> raisethe wrote: > >>> MrBitsy wrote: > >>>> Rob Morley wrote: > >>> , Brimstone > >>>>> says... > > >>>>>> Can you offer a scenario in which someone gets crushed in which > >>>>>> they are not even faintly responsible? > > >>> <megasnip> > > >>> If I had > >>>>> been squashed, would it have been my fault? > > >>>> He we go again with this fault business. The whole thrust of this > >>>> thread has been this ... > > >>>> 'When at the point a collision is likely, forget fault and save > >>>> yourself'. > > >>> Not when the question being responded to asks who is responsible. A > >>> word of advice: read in full the post you are replying to. > > >> No, again you misread or misunderstand. I said "faintly responsible". > >> Primary responsibility lies with the dozo making the initial foul > >> up. The person about to be crushed can also shoulder some of the > >> responsibility because they either put themselves in danger or > >> failed to remove themselves from danger. > > > What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have > > crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly responsible? > > Please explain what you mean by that? > > I don't recall seeing the post in which you described the incident. Care to > repost?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - fOR INSTANCE: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SfY3wjMmqFE
From: raisethe on 21 Dec 2007 07:52
x-no-archive:Brimstone wrote: >>> >>> >> What do you mean? If the lorry that aimed for me on the A4 had have >> crushed me, are you saying that I would have been faintly responsible? >> Please explain what you mean by that? > > I don't recall seeing the post in which you described the incident. Care to > repost? > > Sure. Here it is. Farmer John wrote: > > Peter seems to believe that trucks regularly run over other vehicles. > > > I've never seen or even heard of a truck driving over another car or > cyclist at a roundabout, > I don't think he ever said 'regularly'. Perhaps you could show where he did. One particular lorry driver drove at me and my cycle the other day. Approaching a roundabout on the A4, the throughroute required a right hand exit. As the road is fast and busy, I had to take position toward the right hand side of the wide single lane quite early. This obviously upset the driver of an artic. Whilst on the roundabout, he undertook me, very closely, bawling at me 'to get on the f*cking cycle path.' I then had to swerve out of his way as he cut me up taking the exit that I had been heading toward. For all those who still don't understand Pete's point, please tell me how I could've 'kept clear' of this lorry |