|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Dec 18, 2007 00:12
Mike Barnes (Mike Barnes bluebottle.com>) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:
>>> Where did Doug say the motorist has admitted liability, all he said
>>> was they had a conversation IIRC.
>>You're as bad as Duhg is at selective reading - he clearly said "The
>>driver who hit me has just been in touch by phone and is in complete
>>agreement that he hit me and has the damage on the front of his car to
>>prove it."
> I see nothing there to suggest that the driver has admitted liability.
> All he's done is admitted that it was him and not someone else that was
> involved. It's still quite possible that he could claim that Doug is
> liable for the damage to his car.
Given the circumstances - that he was turning right whilst Duhg was
travelling straight on - there is no other get-out clause possible.
Duhg may be partially at fault for not anticipating the manouvre, but the
driver is to blame and has admitted as much.
> It's equally possible that what we've seen isn't a full and accurate
> account of the conversation.
You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment...
|
| |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Dec 18, 2007 00:26
On 18 Dec, 08:12, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Mike Barnes (Mike Barnes bluebottle.com>) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>> Where did Doug say the motorist has admitted liability, all he said
>>>> was they had a conversation IIRC.
>>>You're as bad as Duhg is at selective reading - he clearly said "The
>>>driver who hit me has just been in touch by phone and is in complete
>>>agreement that he hit me and has the damage on the front of his car to
>>>prove it."
>> I see nothing there to suggest that the driver has admitted liability.
>> All he's done is admitted that it was him and not someone else that was
>> involved. It's still quite possible that he could claim that Doug is
>> liable for the damage to his car.
>
> Given the circumstances - that he was turning right whilst Duhg was
> travelling straight on - there is no other get-out clause possible.
>
> Duhg may be partially at fault for not anticipating the manouvre, but the
> driver is to blame and has admitted as much. ...
|
| Show full article (1.86Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Dec 18, 2007 00:42
Doug (Doug riseup.net>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
> I am still trying to get to the bottom of it. Someone spread a rumour
> that I was riding without lights and hit the car.
"I didn't see him... Did he have lights on? I didn't see him..."
> Due to the difficulty of getting any kind of response from the police
> this is likely to take some time.
FFS, it's South London. Do you _really_ think this is the most important
case the police have to deal with?
> Anyway, drivers not seeing bicycles and motorbikes approaching seems to
> be a common problem.
No, really...? You damn well ought to have known that and expected the
driver to turn across you.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mike BarnesMike Barnes Date: Dec 18, 2007 00:53
In uk.transport, Adrian wrote:
>Mike Barnes (Mike Barnes bluebottle.com>) gurgled happily,
>sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>> Where did Doug say the motorist has admitted liability, all he said
>>>> was they had a conversation IIRC.
>
>>>You're as bad as Duhg is at selective reading - he clearly said "The
>>>driver who hit me has just been in touch by phone and is in complete
>>>agreement that he hit me and has the damage on the front of his car to
>>>prove it."
>
>> I see nothing there to suggest that the driver has admitted liability.
>> All he's done is admitted that it was him and not someone else that was
>> involved. It's still quite possible that he could claim that Doug is
>> liable for the damage to his car.
>
>Given the circumstances - that he was turning right...
|
| Show full article (1.39Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Dec 18, 2007 02:17
> Someone spread a rumour that I was riding without lights and hit the car.
Would that be the sort of person we call "a witness" and the sort of
rumour we call "a witness statement"?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Dec 18, 2007 02:41
> Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Someone spread a rumour that I was riding without lights and hit the car.
>
> Would that be the sort of person we call "a witness" and the sort of
> rumour we call "a witness statement"?
It is entirely plausible that witnesses in cars or on foot may not have seen
Doug's light if it was turned on, because it may have been masked by
brighter lights from vehicles behind him.
After reading of Doug's accident I have been looking particularly for bikes
as I've been driving at night, even when they haven't been directly relevant
to me.
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ®i©ardo®i©ardo Date: Dec 18, 2007 03:46
Doug wrote:
> On 18 Dec, 08:12, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:>> Mike Barnes (Mike Barnes bluebottle.com>) gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>>>> Where did Doug say the motorist has admitted liability, all he said
>>>>> was they had a conversation IIRC.
>>>> You're as bad as Duhg is at selective reading - he clearly said "The
>>>> driver who hit me has just been in touch by phone and is in complete
>>>> agreement that he hit me and has the damage on the front of his car to
>>>> prove it."
>>> I see nothing there to suggest that the driver has admitted liability.
>>> All he's done is admitted that it was him and not someone else that was
>>> involved. It's still quite possible that he could claim that Doug is
>>> liable for the damage to his car.
>> Given the circumstances - that he was turning right whilst Duhg was
>> travelling straight on - there is no other get-out clause possible.
>>
>> Duhg may be partially at fault for not anticipating the manouvre, but the
>> driver is to blame and has admitted as much. ...
|
| Show full article (2.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Dec 18, 2007 04:34
Mortimer wrote:
> I saw a very clear illustration of the difference between steady and
> flashing bike lights. As I was driving along a single carriageway
> road with a 60 limit, with no street lights, I was aware of...
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Dec 18, 2007 05:02
"Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JPWdnQwvYJXHI_ranZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@bt.com...> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> As I was not planning to turn right across the path of either
>> cyclist, and as there was plenty of room for overtaking cars to do so
>> without me needing to move further to the left, it was not important
>> to me in this case whether I saw the cyclists or not.
>
> Can I offer a thought on your very last sentence?
>
> Surely seeing the oncoming cyclist would be warning that an oncoming car
> would need to pull out to pass the cyclist and that a competent driver
> would take it as warning to keep further left than they might otherwise
> do?
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: DougDoug Date: Dec 19, 2007 01:55
On 18 Dec, 08:42, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Doug (Doug riseup.net>) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>>> I am still trying to get to the bottom of it. Someone spread a rumour
>> that I was riding without lights and hit the car.
>
> "I didn't see him... Did he have lights on? I didn't see him..."
>
>> Due to the difficulty of getting any kind of response from the police
>> this is likely to take some time.
>
> FFS, it's South London. Do you _really_ think this is the most important
> case the police have to deal with?
>
What makes you imagine it was S. London?
>
>> Anyway, drivers not seeing bicycles and motorbikes approaching seems to
>> be a common problem.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
