OT. Dutch cyclist v cyclist crashes rise 40 per cent over 4 years

[Mrcheerful]

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

[Tarcap]

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message news:1KL5v.193233$Kx7.1...@fx26.am4...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other cyclist
caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to resort
to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never, ever
at fault.

[Peter Keller]

Who made that claim?

[Tarcap]

"Peter Keller" wrote in message news:ljaj89$for$1...@dont-email.me...

Psycholists. Regularly.

[JNugent]

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Cite?

I have certainly seen posters here, me included, advocating strict
liability for motorists - but never have I seen people suggesting that
cyclists are never at fault. I would be interested to see that cite
which you will undoubtedly provide to support this claim.

[JNugent]

Grow up.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:28:50 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

Does that mean you have no evidence to support your claim?

[JNugent]

It means that I am not going to scrabble around to find instances of
that which you already know quite well to be true.

Don't resort to lies.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:43:05 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

I don't know that at all.

>Don't resort to lies.

"I would be interested to see that cite which you will undoubtedly
provide to support this claim."

I apologise for any lie in the above.

[JNugent]

The lie consists of any assertion to the effect that what I wrote is
essentially untrue (yes, it was a pr�cised version, but only of what you
know to be true).
>

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:04:52 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

I don't know if it is true or not, and that is why I asked for a cite.
I have noted that you are unwilling/unable to provide a cite, and
others may draw whatever conclusion they wish from that fact.

As I have no recollection of anyone claiming that "cycles/cyclists

cannot do any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is

of no significance", I will hold your assertion to be false unless you
can show otherwise.

[JNugent]

I'm not going to scurry about at your behest, but as you know, there
have been examples of both assertions here within the last week. The
"damage is insignificant" point of view came from someone who argued
that it is wrong to seek financial redress from the insurer of a dead
at-fault cyclist.
>

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:36:27 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

I cannot recall the message you refer to, but, in comparison to a
death, damage to a motor vehicle, however serious, is insignificant
when compared to a death.

Similarly, the loss off a Boeing 777 aircraft is insignificant when
compared to the loss of 239 crew and passengers.

Or do you think otherwise?

[Tarcap]

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
news:bdiil9dhg97e0vdho...@4ax.com...

Do you seriously think that the owners of the aircraft should not be
claiming for the loss of the aircraft from their insurers, as it is only "an
insignificant loss"?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:23:39 +0100, "Tarcap" <any...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

No.

[Judith]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:29:39 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>I thought that there was safety in numbers?

I think there is.

If you have 70 or 80 cyclists involved in a road race - then it is most likely
that less than twelve will come off their bike - and about only one or two will
likely be killed in an accident.

[JNugent]

On 24/04/2014 18:41, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tarcap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" wrote:
>
[Cheerful:]

>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that there was safety in numbers?
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lovely quote in that piece:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclist caused the accident."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> resort to blaming each other!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ever at fault.
>

[Keller:]
>>>>>>>>>>> Who made that claim?
>
[JN:]

>>>>>>>>>> Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
>>>>>>>>>> discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
>>>>>>>>>> the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
>>>>>>>>>> (especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.
>>>>>>>>>> Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
>>>>>>>>>> usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
>>>>>>>>>> any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
>>>>>>>>>> significance.
>
>>>>>>>>> Cite?
>
>>>>>>>> Grow up.
>
>>>>>>> Does that mean you have no evidence to support your claim?
>
>>>>>> It means that I am not going to scrabble around to find instances of
>>>>>> that which you already know quite well to be true.
>
>>>>> I don't know that at all.
>
>>>>>> Don't resort to lies.
>
>>>>> "I would be interested to see that cite which you will undoubtedly
>>>>> provide to support this claim."
>>>>> I apologise for any lie in the above.
>
>>>> The lie consists of any assertion to the effect that what I wrote is

>>>> essentially untrue (yes, it was a précised version, but only of what you

>>>> know to be true).
>
>>> I don't know if it is true or not, and that is why I asked for a cite.
>>> I have noted that you are unwilling/unable to provide a cite, and
>>> others may draw whatever conclusion they wish from that fact.
>>> As I have no recollection of anyone claiming that "cycles/cyclists
>>> cannot do any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is
>>> of no significance", I will hold your assertion to be false unless you
>>> can show otherwise.
>
>> I'm not going to scurry about at your behest, but as you know, there
>> have been examples of both assertions here within the last week. The
>> "damage is insignificant" point of view came from someone who argued
>> that it is wrong to seek financial redress from the insurer of a dead
>> at-fault cyclist.
>
> I cannot recall the message you refer to, but, in comparison to a
> death, damage to a motor vehicle, however serious, is insignificant
> when compared to a death.

Well, there you go.

One minute you have no recollection of anyone saying that damage to
property is not of any significance, and the next minute *you* are
saying it.

> Similarly, the loss off a Boeing 777 aircraft is insignificant when
> compared to the loss of 239 crew and passengers.

> Or do you think otherwise?

You seem to have great difficulties with English (though you're not the
only one here with that problem).

The prefix "in" means "not".

"Not" means "not" and not merely "less than something else".

Something which is insignificant has no significance. That's what the
word means. The item's lack of significance does not need to be
justified by comparison to something which is significant.

Now... damage to property *has* significance. It will cost money to
repair and in many cases (such as that of a vehicle) may well cause
losses in opportunity costs, temporary losses due to hire-charges, etc.

All of this can be expressed in monetary terms, as distasteful as you
might feel that to be.

Something which has significance cannot credibly be said to have no
significance. That something else may be felt to be more significant is
absolutely irrelevant.

But actually, that's by the by. I am simply - and patiently - explaining
why you are wrong - absolutely wrong - to say that damage to property is
insignificant.

But the bigger picture here is that you deny that it is said. Yet you
are saying it.

QED






>

[JNugent]

>>>>> essentially untrue (yes, it was a précised version, but only of what you

>>>>> know to be true).
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it is true or not, and that is why I asked for a cite.
>>>> I have noted that you are unwilling/unable to provide a cite, and
>>>> others may draw whatever conclusion they wish from that fact.
>>>>
>>>> As I have no recollection of anyone claiming that "cycles/cyclists
>>>> cannot do any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is
>>>> of no significance", I will hold your assertion to be false unless you
>>>> can show otherwise.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to scurry about at your behest, but as you know, there
>>> have been examples of both assertions here within the last week. The
>>> "damage is insignificant" point of view came from someone who argued
>>> that it is wrong to seek financial redress from the insurer of a dead
>>> at-fault cyclist.
>>
>> I cannot recall the message you refer to, but, in comparison to a
>> death, damage to a motor vehicle, however serious, is insignificant
>> when compared to a death.
>>
>> Similarly, the loss off a Boeing 777 aircraft is insignificant when
>> compared to the loss of 239 crew and passengers.
>>
>> Or do you think otherwise?
>>
>> Do you seriously think that the owners of the aircraft should not be
>> claiming for the loss of the aircraft from their insurers, as it is only "an
>> insignificant loss"?
>
> No.

And do you seriously think that the owner of a damaged motor vehicle
should not be claiming against the insurers of a cycle race, one of
whose competitors damaged the vehicle?
>

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:35:14 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

>>>>>> essentially untrue (yes, it was a pr�cised version, but only of what you

No.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:33:47 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

No. The bigger picture is your misrepresentation of what is being
said.

The Earth is insignificant when compared to the Universe - but is very
significant for us.

A butterfly is insignificant when compared to the Earth, but becomes
very significant if its fluttering wings in Congo cause a hurricane to
destroy a city.

A dent on a car's bonnet is insignificant when compared to the death
of a cyclist, but becomes significant for the driver's disposable
income of Ł100 per month who would otherwise have to fork out Ł450 for
repairs.

>QED
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>

[Judith]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 07:54:51 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>>And do you seriously think that the owner of a damaged motor vehicle
>>should not be claiming against the insurers of a cycle race, one of
>>whose competitors damaged the vehicle?
>
>No.

I, for one, look forward to a well reasoned response.

[Peter Keller]

I have tried to find actual figures for blame in bicycle/motor vehicle
accidents.
Bicyclists usually seem to be to blame in at least 32% of occurrences.
Perhaps people should do a little research before posting opinions.

[Peter Keller]

So by definition I am not a psycholist?

[JNugent]

It was a fair response.

[JNugent]

>>>>>> essentially untrue (yes, it was a pr�cised version, but only of what you

I'll correct that for you:

"The Earth is comparatively insignificant when compared to the Universe
- but is highly significant for us".

That's a fair amendment.

> A butterfly is insignificant when compared to the Earth, but becomes
> very significant if its fluttering wings in Congo cause a hurricane to
> destroy a city.

Do I need to make the same alteration?

> A dent on a car's bonnet is insignificant when compared to the death
> of a cyclist, but becomes significant for the driver's disposable

> income of �100 per month who would otherwise have to fork out �450 for
> repairs.

It is significant all the way through the process. Other outcomes of the
collision do not make it less significant.

I appreciate that the arithmetic is used to make a point. The damage, of
course, is not made more significant if the owner is poor. The
significance is the same whether the owner of the vehicle is Doug Bollen
or that Formula One bloke who "donated" a million pounds to the Labour
Party.

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:m85kl95dr5erphf82...@4ax.com...

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:b6vil99ijqpuqeqc9...@4ax.com...

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:53:11 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

The cost of the repair is more significant for a less wealthy person
than a more wealthy person.

BTW - houses in Doug's street sell for more than �600,000. Even those
houses converted into three flats sell for about �250,000.

[Judith]

It was: but it would be interesting to see his good reasons why he thinks "no"

[Judith]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:14:09 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>BTW - houses in Doug's street sell for more than £600,000. Even those
>houses converted into three flats sell for about £250,000.

Fascinating.

Relevance: nil

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:40:31 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

That has been answered fully below.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:42:06 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Nugent was categorising Doug as someone less wealthy. I think Nugent
is wrong to assume that. And Doug has riches beyond price - something
that makes his material wealth irrelevant.

[Judith]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:43:58 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>

wrote:

<snip>

>>>BTW - houses in Doug's street sell for more than �600,000. Even those
>>>houses converted into three flats sell for about �250,000.
>>
>>
>>
>>Fascinating.
>>
>>Relevance: nil
>
>Nugent was categorising Doug as someone less wealthy. I think Nugent
>is wrong to assume that.

Why - you have no idea whether he owns a property or whether he rents it and
how many people he shares with.

You are just obsessed with the financial status of other people.

[Judith]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:40:08 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>

For the avoidance of doubt: should the owner of the damaged vehicle be able to
claim off the insurers of the cycle race?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:15:46 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:40:08 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:40:31 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 17:47:40 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 25/04/2014 08:56, Judith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> And do you seriously think that the owner of a damaged motor vehicle
>>>>>>> should not be claiming against the insurers of a cycle race, one of
>>>>>>> whose competitors damaged the vehicle?
>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> I, for one, look forward to a well reasoned response.
>>>>
>>>>It was a fair response.
>>>
>>>
>>>It was: but it would be interesting to see his good reasons why he thinks "no"
>>
>>That has been answered fully below.
>
>
>For the avoidance of doubt: should the owner of the damaged vehicle be able to
>claim off the insurers of the cycle race?

The driver should be able to put in a claim, yes.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:10:45 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:43:58 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>BTW - houses in Doug's street sell for more than �600,000. Even those
>>>>houses converted into three flats sell for about �250,000.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Fascinating.
>>>
>>>Relevance: nil
>>
>>Nugent was categorising Doug as someone less wealthy. I think Nugent
>>is wrong to assume that.
>
>Why - you have no idea whether he owns a property or whether he rents it and
>how many people he shares with.

Those flats let for over �1200 per month, the houses substantially
more.

>You are just obsessed with the financial status of other people.

It wasn't me who used his supposed lack of wealth as a comparison with
a millionaire. I merely pointed out that he lives in an expensive home
- whether rented or owned.

[Judith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 08:34:12 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>>For the avoidance of doubt: should the owner of the damaged vehicle be able to
>>claim off the insurers of the cycle race?
>
>The driver should be able to put in a claim, yes.

Would you expect and hope that the insurers would pay out in the circumstances
where the driver did nothing wrong at all and the damage was purely caused by
the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 14:27:08 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

I am not in a position to judge the merits of this claim, or the scope
of the organiser's insurance policy.

[Judith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:03:21 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>>Would you expect and hope that the insurers would pay out in the circumstances
>>where the driver did nothing wrong at all and the damage was purely caused by
>>the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist?
>
>I am not in a position to judge the merits of this claim, or the scope
>of the organiser's insurance policy.

"expect"
"hope"

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle,

So you do not have the ability to form a view in an example where it is clearly
stated that "the driver did nothing wrong at all" and "the damage was purely

caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist"

I bet if I had said that the driver was Vietnamese you would have expressed
your opinion .

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:37:04 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:03:21 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>Would you expect and hope that the insurers would pay out in the circumstances
>>>where the driver did nothing wrong at all and the damage was purely caused by
>>>the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist?
>>
>>I am not in a position to judge the merits of this claim, or the scope
>>of the organiser's insurance policy.
>
>"expect"
>"hope"
>
>Wiggle, wiggle wiggle,
>
>So you do not have the ability to form a view in an example where it is clearly
>stated that "the driver did nothing wrong at all" and "the damage was purely
>caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist"

I have nothing more to add.

[JNugent]

You were not asked to "judge the merits of this claim".

The "merits of the claim" were posited as part of the question you were
asked.

You were asked only to pass an opinion on what should be the outcome
where the driver had done nothing wrong at all and the damage was purely
caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of a cyclist involved
in the race (whose "organisers" may apparently be safely assumed to be
insured).

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:21:27 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I was asked about a specific incident.

[Judith]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:05:26 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>I was asked about a specific incident.

Which specific incident was that then - I can't see such a specific incident
reference: you may just have jumped to an incorrect assumption (again).

How about a hypothetical situation then:

In a cycle race an accident is caused 100% by a cyclist driving dangerously and
without consideration for road other road users. The driver of the car was
totally innocent and blameless. The car was severely damaged, and the damage
was purely caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist.
Do you believe that the insurers of the cycle race should pay out 100% for the
damage.

[Tarcap]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:lvkpl91mmq6lvcsis...@4ax.com...

I think we should all be prepared for a mega-wriggle here.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:59:57 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Cyclists don't drive, they ride.

[Tarcap]

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
news:59spl9h6jqsotphcd...@4ax.com...

I told you so!

[Mrcheerful]

since a bicycle is a carriage, then yes, you can drive a bicycle.

What a great pity that cyclists have forgotten one of the tenets of the CTC:
�[We] specially urge on every individual rider the desirability of
extending to all that courtesy which be would have shown to himself. The
present prejudice against bicycling has been partly caused (and cannot
but be fostered and increased) by a disregard to the feelings of other
passengers on the road; and although the right of the bicyclist to the
free use of the public highway should be at all times maintained, any
needless altercation should be studiously avoided.�

It is still very relevant, and ignored by most cyclists.

[JNugent]

OK, have it your way:

In a cycle race, an accident is caused 100% by a cyclist cycling (or, if
the term is preferred, riding) dangerously and without consideration for
other road users. The driver of the car is totally innocent and
blameless. The car is damaged and the damage is purely caused by, and
can only be blamed on, the cyclist.

Do you believe that the insurers of the cycle race should pay for the
relevant losses of the driver and/or owner of the motor vehicle?

[Mrcheerful]

On 27/04/2014 15:42, Ariel wrote:
> Mrcheerful:

>
>
>> since a bicycle is a carriage, then yes, you can drive a bicycle.
>

> What about the rule of thumb?
>
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_you_drive_a_bike_or_ride_a_bike?#slide=2
>

The rule of law is the best. taylor v goodwin 1878 established that a
bicycle was indeed a carriage in law and subject therefore to all the
rules of the road.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:58:48 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Is this a hypothetical question or are you talking about a specific
incident?

[Judith]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:02:28 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>Cyclists don't drive, they ride.

I am so sorry - I will try again - I am sure you will now be able to answer
the question, now that it is crystal clear.



In a cycle race an accident is caused 100% by a cyclist riding dangerously and

without consideration for road other road users. The driver of the car was
totally innocent and blameless. The car was severely damaged, and the damage
was purely caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist.
Do you believe that the insurers of the cycle race should pay out 100% for the

damage?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:06:18 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

What does the insurance policy say?

[Judith]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:45:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:06:18 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:02:28 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Cyclists don't drive, they ride.
>>
>>
>>I am so sorry - I will try again - I am sure you will now be able to answer
>>the question, now that it is crystal clear.
>>
>>
>>
>>In a cycle race an accident is caused 100% by a cyclist riding dangerously and
>>without consideration for road other road users. The driver of the car was
>>totally innocent and blameless. The car was severely damaged, and the damage
>>was purely caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist.
>>Do you believe that the insurers of the cycle race should pay out 100% for the
>>damage?
>
>What does the insurance policy say?

If you are trying to prove that you are indeed the prat that you appear to be -
then you have certainly succeeded this time.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:11:26 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:45:56 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 19:06:18 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:02:28 +0100, Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cyclists don't drive, they ride.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am so sorry - I will try again - I am sure you will now be able to answer
>>>the question, now that it is crystal clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In a cycle race an accident is caused 100% by a cyclist riding dangerously and
>>>without consideration for road other road users. The driver of the car was
>>>totally innocent and blameless. The car was severely damaged, and the damage
>>>was purely caused by the inappropriate and dangerous actions of the cyclist.
>>>Do you believe that the insurers of the cycle race should pay out 100% for the
>>>damage?
>>
>>What does the insurance policy say?
>
>
>If you are trying to prove that you are indeed the prat that you appear to be -
>then you have certainly succeeded this time.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to persuade me to
determine if an insurance policy should pay out, without allowing me
access to the text of the policy.

Of course, that is one of the problems with hypothetical questions.

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:lvkpl91mmq6lvcsis...@4ax.com...

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:1lhql9t70e5k1fh1p...@4ax.com...

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:2glql9pg58vocgb3u...@4ax.com...

[JNugent]

It is hypothetical, but only because I do not know for absolute certain
that the posited circumstances fit a particular existing case exactly.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:14:54 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

OK - I really don't feel in a position to cast judgment. You have
admitted to not knowing if the case you cite is hypothetical or not,
and have given scant details of the insurance policy.

[JNugent]

I have not "admitted" to anything.

I *know* whether the case is hypothetical. It *is* hypothetical and I
had already said so quite clearly.

Are you just wriggling?

The insurance policy may be taken to cover the race organisers against
claims for damage, loss, injury or death caused to third parties by any
organiser or competitor during, or in connection with, the race.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:06:14 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

Nug - It is hypothetical, but only because I do not know for absolute
Nug - certain that the posited circumstances fit a particular existing
Nug - case exactly.

That sounds like you don't know whether or not it matches "a
particular existing case exactly". I.e. you are unsure if it is
hypothetical or not.

>Are you just wriggling?
>
>The insurance policy may be taken to cover the race organisers against
>claims for damage, loss, injury or death caused to third parties by any
>organiser or competitor during, or in connection with, the race.

Is that a quote from the policy, or did you just make it up?

[Judith in England]

I think Mr Crispin is beginning to wish he had not got involved in this
discussion.

I think most reasonable people would immediately agree that the race
organisers' insurance company should pay the relevant losses of the driver
and/or owner of the motor vehicle.

I do not include Mr Crispin in that group of people: so I can understand his
reticence in stating his position.

[JNugent]

The case I put is hypothetical.

That is the third time that I have unequivocally stated it.

Why are you equivocating?

>> Are you just wriggling?

>> The insurance policy may be taken to cover the race organisers against
>> claims for damage, loss, injury or death caused to third parties by any
>> organiser or competitor during, or in connection with, the race.

> Is that a quote from the policy, or did you just make it up?

It is, to use what is becoming a tried and tested phrase, a hypothetical
circumstance.

Are you just frightened of having to answer the question logically?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:08:33 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

I see no reason to answer a question about something hypothetical.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:26:03 +0100, Judith in England

Even if the policy specifically excludes such hypothetical situations?

[Judith]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:08:33 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

<snip>

>
>Are you just frightened of having to answer the question logically?

I think that that sums up the situation nicely.

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:41:07 +0100, Judith wrote:

> the prat

Why do people insult others?

Makes them feel better about themselves when they are INDEED the ugly and
sad ones....

[JNugent]

And at least one massive reason not to, eh?

[Judith]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:023sl9dr5gbcfaov1...@4ax.com...

[Bertie Wooster]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:27:08 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

There are many massive reasons not to answer a hypothetical question
with so many unanswered variables.

[JNugent]

On 28/04/2014 19:24, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:

It's alright.

No-one reading this exchange could possibly be unaware of the exact
reason why you don't want to give the only possible sensible answer to a
straightforward question.

Cue: more wriggling.

[Mark Williams]

Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk> writes:

>> Who made that claim?
>>
>> Psycholists. Regularly.
>
> So by definition I am not a psycholist?

Your logic is impeccable. As Partac _is_ a `psycholist'
(<URL:news:874n797...@engine2.aziraphale.homeip.net>), it must be he
who is making the claim :-).

--
Mark

[Mark Williams]

Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> writes:

>>The lie consists of any assertion to the effect that what I wrote is
>>essentially untrue (yes, it was a pr�cised version, but only of what
>>you know to be true).
>
> I don't know if it is true or not, and that is why I asked for a cite.
> I have noted that you are unwilling/unable to provide a cite, and
> others may draw whatever conclusion they wish from that fact.
>
> As I have no recollection of anyone claiming that "cycles/cyclists
> cannot do any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is
> of no significance", I will hold your assertion to be false unless you
> can show otherwise.

Could it have been said by someone whose posts you do not read? If that
is the case, then the evidence might well be out there, although I'm not
sure how you will ever find out about it. Therefore; probably best not
to hold your breath ;-).

It is sometimes claimed in this newsgroup that `all cyclists are
conseederably reecher than JNeeogent'. The claim---as well as the
rather contrived objections to the claim---usually come from the same
small clique (typically, from JNugent himself, pretending to
misunderstand that was actually said for rhetorical purposes). We shall
need to have our critical heads on if/ when the above mentioned cite
does emerge so that we can spot anyone trying to blag the full half hour
argument when they've only paid for a five minute insult...

--
Mark

[Tarcap]

"Mark Williams" wrote in message
news:87egzs5...@engine2.aziraphale.homeip.net...

Your logic is bizarre. Have you been re-released back into the community
again?
Keep taking the tablets- they might just help you.