Cyclists sued boater

[Tumshie]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

 It has been known for posts to have differing numbers depending on who is looking at them; I don' know why this should be.

Really ? Are you sure ? Is that not an eency weecy face saving porky pie? No? Of corse not ?

Edited August 14, 2019 by Athy

[furnessvale]

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

Really ? Are you sure ? Is that not an eency weecy face saving porky pie? No? Of corse not ?

Not by me it isn't!

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Tumshie said:

Really ? Are you sure ? Is that not an eency weecy face saving porky pie? No? Of corse not ?

I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting that I have told a lie? If so, to save whose face?

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

Really ? Are you sure ? Is that not an eency weecy face saving porky pie? No? Of corse not ?

Why would a mod be saving somebody's face other than perhaps their own (which this clearly wasn't).

[Tumshie]

Just now, furnessvale said:

Correct. aracer's post was #109.  My initial response to him was #112.

 

It doesn't change the initial statement by aracer that, where a cyclist is undertaking a vehicle which is clearly indicating its intention, at least some of the fault falls on the vehicle driver.

 

For the avoidance of doubt I am NOT  talking about a vehicle overtaking a cyclist and then carving him up.

 

George

You cherry picked half a sentence to try and substantiate your biased narrative - to hide the fact that he did to a certain extent agree with you. And now that you have been called on that you are reverting back to an argument that you are now trying to reframe... this is where the biased credibility problems in your argument start to look a bit glaring. 

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting that I have told a lie? If so, to save whose face?

And editing your spelling mistakes too I see...... Athy a spelling mistake I here you say 

[furnessvale]

1 minute ago, Tumshie said:

You cherry picked half a sentence to try and substantiate your biased narrative - to hide the fact that he did to a certain extent agree with you. And now that you have been called on that you are reverting back to an argument that you are now trying to reframe... this is where the biased credibility problems in your argument start to look a bit glaring. 

Fair enough.  So at least you agree that in the circumstances I outlined the cyclist, not the driver is to blame?

 

George

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

 

And editing your spelling mistakes too I see...... Athy a spelling mistake I here you say 

A typing, rather than spelling, mistake.in fact.

Perhaps you would answer my question, please?

[Tumshie]

Just now, furnessvale said:

Fair enough.  So at least you agree that in the circumstances I outlined the cyclist, not the driver is to blame?

 

George

No I stated that you tried to change the truth of what someone said to fit your own biased narrative there is a big difference. 

Just now, Athy said:

A typing, rather than spelling, mistake.in fact.

Of course 

 

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Perhaps you would answer my question, please?

I didn't suggest anything, did I? I asked a question which I then also answered, didn't I? ?

[furnessvale]

3 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

No I stated that you tried to change the truth of what someone said to fit your own biased narrative there is a big difference. 

This is the entire paragraph from aracer.

 

"Though whilst I'm trying to avoid being diverted, now you've mentioned it... Yes in such incidents the cyclist is at fault - even possibly mostly at fault. However it's still not the cyclist introducing the danger to the roads - it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

 

I really cannot see how my quoting the last sentence is changing the truth of what aracer said.

 

George

[Tumshie]

5 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

This is the entire paragraph from aracer.

 

"Though whilst I'm trying to avoid being diverted, now you've mentioned it... Yes in such incidents the cyclist is at fault - even possibly mostly at fault. However it's still not the cyclist introducing the danger to the roads - it's an interesting one as the direct cause of the cyclist's death in such circumstances is the driver running into them by driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

 

I really cannot see how my quoting the last sentence is changing the truth of what aracer said.

 

George

I know that I quoted that - I get the distinct feeling that you are deliberately trying to move the focus from what I actually said to what you want me to say because you don't want me to keep reminding you that you tried to change the meaning of what someone said to spin your own biased  narrative. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tumshie

[furnessvale]

5 minutes ago, Tumshie said:

I know that I quoted that - I get the distinct feeling that you are deliberately trying to move the focus from what I actually said to what you want me to say because you don't want me to keep reminding you that you tried to change the meaning of what someone said to spin your own biased  narrative. 

We seem to be at cross purposes.  In my post #112 I quoted aracer not you.

 

I have now in #134 quoted aracer's complete paragraph.  I fail to see where I am changing the meaning of aracer's post.

[Tumshie]

3 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

We seem to be at cross purposes.  In my post #112 I quoted aracer not you.

 

I have now in #134 quoted aracer's complete paragraph.  I fail to see where I am changing the meaning of aracer's post.

We were at cross purposes but there is never any need to stay there.  ?

[tree monkey]

Just now, Tumshie said:

We were at cross purposes but there is never any need to stay there.  ?

Off topic but a VULCAN emoji 

[furnessvale]

Just now, tree monkey said:

Off topic but a VULCAN emoji 

I wondered what it was.  I was hoping it wasn't a middle finger! ?

[Tumshie]

1 minute ago, tree monkey said:

Off topic but a VULCAN emoji 

Live long and prosper - my long limbed friend 

[aracer]

1 hour ago, furnessvale said:

The bit I have highlighted tells me all I need to know about how you feel about cyclists.

It ought to, but I don't suppose you've actually understood. I'm simply of the opinion that the punishment for a minor mistake shouldn't be death (given drivers don't get punished that way for similar mistakes.

 

I did wonder if my comment might make people think and decide not to comment, but it seems quite the opposite. To give the required relevant context which it seems others are keen to snip

"driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

 

So just to double check, you and others consider that driving your vehicle into a bit of road you don't know is clear is perfectly acceptable.

 

Just to clarify further, running into somebody who is on a bit of road they shouldn't be on isn't your fault at all if you've clearly shown your intentions to take your vehicle onto that bit of road?

 

I have much more I can write, but I'm interested in direct answers to those questions.

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I suppose the 'direct cause' of deaths in an air crash is the 'fault of the ground' being there.

Hmm, bad strawman.

[BWM]

4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

The argument about legalities and liabilities detracts from the main issue.  Many parts of the towpath are places where people like to relax, possibly daydream, as they wander along, idly gazing at the view, the boats, the wildlife.   It is not just the towpath - many footpaths in parks and the countryside are (or should be) places where users do not need to be constantly on the alert for possible hazards that are not directly related to the environment they are enjoying.  A minority of bikers (and joggers) who do not take this into consideration are spoiling the amenity enjoyed by so many.   CRT are actively promoting the canals as a place to relax and get away from the stresses of modern life, and should be proactive in ensuring that this is a realistic objective. 

 

Perfectly summed up. 

4 hours ago, Athy said:

It most certainly is not. Speeding simply means making quick progress. That it is often used to describe ugsome behaviour by people in or on wheeled transport does not alter that original meaning.

Chopping my comment in half is akin to arguing with yourself. You have basically repeated the second part of my post. 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Cyclists can kill & injure themselves driving into the back of parked cars, falling off etc etc.

They manage quite well without the involvement of a motor vehicle - lack of concentration, Ear phones and inadequate spatial awareness means they cannot even steer around potholes.

I guess it comes down to "natural selection".

 

Courtesy of the Independent :

 

Dozens of cyclists are being killed or seriously injured every year because of poorly maintained roads, figures show.

Cycling groups have warned of a “worrying” upward trend of deaths and injuries on British roads after new data revealed almost 100 people had died or been left with life-changing injuries as a result of accidents caused by potholes and cracks in the tarmac over a two-year period. 

In 2015, the last year for which figures are available, 46 people were knocked off their bikes because of unsafe road surfaces. A year earlier, 53 cyclists were killed or seriously hurt.

Your take on this is absurd, an inversion of the statement you have pasted in. Why does your hatred of cyclists push you to state those unfortunate fatalities were entirely self inflicted?

 These potholes are often hidden by leaves or filled with water, riders often have no option to avoid with fast moving traffic alongside, along with so many other hazards on the road their attention may be focused on. 

3 hours ago, Tumshie said:

See this is the problem with your participation in these conversation you seem to be under the impression that people are saying things they aren't, that people are making arguments they aren't. Like all good echo chambers half truths are echoed back to you and you automatically pounce on them calling them whole truths. 

 

I have always stated - and you will find those posts simply by reading any cyclist bashing thread that I have participated in - that anybody who breaks the law and does harm to another human should be held responsible that there are cyclists out there not as courteous as they could be. What I am arguing is that your experience is not a reasonable argument, you remember your experiences tainted with your own biases. There is good reason why we look to science to answer our questions about the universe and not the church. You have escalated you arguments on this subject to the point where they can not reasonably be taken seriously, this does not help you convince me as a cyclist that you are anything other than a hater and I've rarely found haters constructive - if you want me to listen to you, to learn from you then the best way to do that is not by making me your enemy. 

 

The Biggest problem I've had discussing any thing on this forum of late is that I struggle to find any middle ground - nothing is all bad or all good, all too often I feel the discussion  isn't about the thing being discussed as it is about bashing anything thats not us. 

 

 

Wise words, and the lack of so many on here to be able to empathise with another's opinions constantly makes me sad, and so different to a conversation taking place in person - possibly the biggest mystery concerning internet based communication. 

2 hours ago, furnessvale said:

I have in the past on several occasions had to swerve to avoid an errant cyclist, thereby putting myself, my family or my vehicle in danger from other "steel boxes" not anticipating my sudden move.

 

However, you have convinced me that, in the future, I should be more circumspect and avoid any danger to me or mine.

 

George

As someone who has driven for a living for most of my working life i can categorically state that the vast amount of vehicles/persons/etc. giving me cause to swerve or otherwise take evasive action are airheaded car kamikazes, cyclists don't even come close. A good portion of my driving has been of the Hgv kind in London and  many other cities, most of what you complain about could be solved by your better use of both brakes and anticipation. 

In the end, human behaviour changes little, regardless of the means of transport but the consequences of inattention and boorish, irresponsible behaviour are vastly different encased in tonnes of metal.

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, BWM said:

 

Chopping my comment in half is akin to arguing with yourself. You have basically repeated the second part of my post. 

 

I did not chop it in half: I quoted the part to which I was replying, because it was the relevant part.

[furnessvale]

32 minutes ago, aracer said:

It ought to, but I don't suppose you've actually understood. I'm simply of the opinion that the punishment for a minor mistake shouldn't be death (given drivers don't get punished that way for similar mistakes.

 

I did wonder if my comment might make people think and decide not to comment, but it seems quite the opposite. To give the required relevant context which it seems others are keen to snip

"driving their vehicle into a bit of road they either can't see or haven't checked is clear. We live in a society where such driving is seen as perfectly acceptable - so acceptable that I have no doubt I will get replies arguing that the driver is not at fault at all."

 

So just to double check, you and others consider that driving your vehicle into a bit of road you don't know is clear is perfectly acceptable.

 

Just to clarify further, running into somebody who is on a bit of road they shouldn't be on isn't your fault at all if you've clearly shown your intentions to take your vehicle onto that bit of road?

 

I have much more I can write, but I'm interested in direct answers to those questions.

 

Hmm, bad strawman.

1.  No the road is clear, I have checked in my mirrors.

 

2.  A cyclist who wasn't there when I started my move has suddenly ridden into my space.

 

It happens, look at YouTube.

 

I have already stated I am not talking about motorists who overtake a cyclist and then carve them up.

 

George

 

George

[Guest]

 

Talking of cyclists riding into the back of cars... (20 seconds in)

[furnessvale]

5 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

 

Talking of cyclists riding into the back of cars... (20 seconds in)

https://www.facebook.com/269884357028298/videos/418760308983190/UzpfSTEwMDAwMTkwNzc4NTE5MjpWSzoyMzgwNTAyMjg1NTI3MjEy/?multi_permalinks=2383504868560287%2C2383036598607114%2C2382485285328912%2C2380502285527212%2C2379305195646921&notif_id=1565195001482066&notif_t=group_activity

 

I don't know if the above link will work but it simply shows there are idiots on both sides of the argument.

 

George

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

https://www.facebook.com/269884357028298/videos/418760308983190/UzpfSTEwMDAwMTkwNzc4NTE5MjpWSzoyMzgwNTAyMjg1NTI3MjEy/?multi_permalinks=2383504868560287%2C2383036598607114%2C2382485285328912%2C2380502285527212%2C2379305195646921&notif_id=1565195001482066&notif_t=group_activity

 

I don't know if the above link will work but it simply shows there are idiots on both sides of the argument.

 

George

That much we can certainly agree on. Natural selection with pare them off.

Edited August 14, 2019 by NB Caelmiri

[Tony Brooks]

4 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

https://www.facebook.com/269884357028298/videos/418760308983190/UzpfSTEwMDAwMTkwNzc4NTE5MjpWSzoyMzgwNTAyMjg1NTI3MjEy/?multi_permalinks=2383504868560287%2C2383036598607114%2C2382485285328912%2C2380502285527212%2C2379305195646921&notif_id=1565195001482066&notif_t=group_activity

 

I don't know if the above link will work but it simply shows there are idiots on both sides of the argument.

 

George

and I have not seen anyone who has said anything different but the fact remains that motorists can be easily identified as long as you can see their registration plate but cyclists can't so are free to ride as they please with little fear of consequences. That is the situation that some here do not seem to want to address.

[Tumshie]

8 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

and I have not seen anyone who has said anything different but the fact remains that motorists can be easily identified as long as you can see their registration plate but cyclists can't so are free to ride as they please with little fear of consequences. That is the situation that some here do not seem to want to address.

It's seems like you are saying that cyclist are actively against a car style registration because I haven't read an comments on this forum written by a cyclist that would suggest that. There isn't a system in place that we can use and I'm not prepared to broadcast my home address on my person for any psycho to come banging on my door but as far as I'm aware most cyclist are not deliberately trying to do anything to harm you or avoid prosecution. 

 

 

[Tumshie]

26 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I don't know if the above link will work but it simply shows there are idiots on both sides of the argument.

Now if we could just agree there are nice people on both sides too that would be even better ?

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Tumshie