Cycle related thread on uk.legal.moderated

Adrian Boliston said:

Anyone seen the thread on the car/cycle accident on news:uk.legal.moderated -

Do you mean the one about Lance Armstrong diverting someone's rent payments?

d.

Adrian Boliston said:

Anyone seen the thread on the car/cycle accident on
news:uk.legal.moderated - typically most posters seem on the side of
the motorist, so perhaps some of us lot can redress that?

I see your point. It's at the following url

<url:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/browse_thread/thread/45fbe4371d88e0a8#ec25e9685433605d>

The description seems pretty much to be hiding something, if the car
did overtake some TTers, then a couple of miles later one suddenly
whacks straight into the back of it hard enough to dent the
bumper.

How did the bike get there? Why wasn't it visible in the rear view
mirror? If the driver couldn't see him, why could his daughter?
Etc, etc.

I like the poster who's upset that her insurance had to compensate
when she hit an unlit cyclist on an A road, who has no comprehension
that even if cyclists should be lit, there's plenty of things that
could have been there that don't have to be lit.

A

Colin Davidson said:

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I like the poster who's upset that her insurance had to compensate
when she hit an unlit cyclist on an A road, who has no comprehension
that even if cyclists should be lit, there's plenty of things that
could have been there that don't have to be lit.

True enough. I'd call the cyclist an idiot, though.

Indeed. I just find it bewildering how someone can crash into
someone/thing and not think "What could *I* have done to stop it
happening". Obviously my scruples are unusual.

A

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I see your point. It's at the following url

<url:http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.legal.moderated/browse_thread/th
read/45fbe4371d88e0a8#ec25e9685433605d>

Quoted message said:

The description seems pretty much to be hiding something, if the car
did overtake some TTers, then a couple of miles later one suddenly
whacks straight into the back of it hard enough to dent the
bumper.

How did the bike get there? Why wasn't it visible in the rear view
mirror? If the driver couldn't see him, why could his daughter?
Etc, etc.

And more to the point, how did a cyclist hit him on the back without him
feeling/hearing the impact? Surely someone hits your car with their bike
it'll make a hell of a noise? Why was it left to his daughter to tell him
about this?

But there's something about this that doesn't gel; if he overtook the other
guy miles ago, did the cyclist run into his rear at random? If that's the
case, why is it even relevant to point out that the overtaking manoevre had
been miles earlier?

I'd like to hear the other guys story. There's insufficient information here
to really know what happened.

Quoted message said:

I like the poster who's upset that her insurance had to compensate
when she hit an unlit cyclist on an A road, who has no comprehension
that even if cyclists should be lit, there's plenty of things that
could have been there that don't have to be lit.

True enough. I'd call the cyclist an idiot, though.