Car Accident - Page 7

I don't think Phil actually knows what cycling in traffic means. To me it means riding on the left,
while motor vehicles pass me on the right, unless I am going faster and pass them, or take the lane
on a downhill, or am turning right. It's usually more efficient and safer than riding on the
foot-path because the road has more room, and usually better surfaces.

"Phil Allison" <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f68074f$0$15136$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Peter Signorini" <petesig@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3f680272@news.alphalink.com.au...
> >
> > "Phil Allison" <philallison@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3f668e93$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > > Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.
> > >
> > > Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the
> risk.
> >
> > Maybe you should get out more often.....on the road......on a bike.
>
>
> ** It that a death threat ??
>
>
>
> > I could write a (small) book about the methods and strategies to cycle safely in traffic,
>
>
> ** So you admit is it inherently suicidal.
>
>
>
> > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and survive
> tend
> > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
> safest
> > at first glance.
>
>
> ** "..... cycle in traffic and survive " ???????
>
>
>
> Says it all really.
>
>
>
>
> .............. Phil

Stop re-posting the same message.

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bk99pa$qjv6k$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...

> John Doe <pdrinan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vJT9b.107704$bo1.69337@news-server.bigpond.net.au... just the puerile silly **** thats all it
> can ever manage.
>
> Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

"Laurence Dodd" <ljdodd@bigblue.net.au>

> I don't think .....

** That was all you really had to say.

.......... Phil

> > Generally many of the safest strategies to cycle in traffic and
survive
: > tend
: > > to be counter to what the crash-wary, metal-bound motorist thinks is
: > safest
: > > at first glance.
: >

Laurence,

Phil is a troll. Its probably Rod Speed or just a wanabe. They have no real opinion about this
stuff. Their opinion is formed purely to get peoples emotions up. You will probably see a reply to
this post from Rod Speed and or Phil Allison very soon after this as they just have automated bots
replying with when they get sick of the thread. Their only real weapon is not evidence but common
primary school type taunts to get people worked up as their argument is illogical and lacks
knowledge. You will see what I mean in a moment as the replies come back in. From a little searching
on the groups it appears that Rod does actually possess knowledge about electronics, comms,
computers etc but only on a technical level. They are "hackers". As in hacks without true knowledge.
Who knows this rave may even get them/him to crawl out of the cave.

bait: I don't think that you should store seafood in the sun.

Pete

"John Doe" <no_pdrinan_spam@hotmail.com>

** "John Doe" is the name used on tags attached to unidentified bodies in the morgue.

It is highly ironic that you chose that name - as no doubt you fully expect to wind up there
after some truck mows you down.

Can't come too soon.

........... Phil

John Doe <pdrinan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GCaab.109355$bo1.102123@news-server.bigpond.net.au... just the puerile silly **** thats all it
can ever manage.

Try harder, child. You might actually manage to fool someone, sometime.

Laurence Dudd <ljdudd@bigblue.net.au> wrote in message news:bkba8l$1rqn$1@bigblue.net.au...

> Stop re-posting the same message.

Go shove your head up a dead bear's ****.

In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having anything to do with Rod
Speed he is a nutter from way back before the Internet

http://www.rodspeed.cjb.net/

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages...ta/roddles.htm

regards

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bk13ii$nv5g4$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Gary K <ocean1@removeiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1g1a3mf.hl6939k8kmbmN%ocean1@removeiinet.net.au...
>
> > Contrary to what someone without knowledge says, cycling is a low risk activity
>
> Complete pack of lies as far as a road accident producing personal injury is concerned. Just
> because a bike rider has very little protection when someone inevitably does something stupid. And
> its completely impossible to eliminate that real risk.
>
> > with slightly less risk of death than car driving.
>
> Thats just totally bogus statistics. If you only count death in car accidents in a builtup area,
> and dont count those on the open highway, the risk of death is MUCH higher per vehicle mile with
> bike riding that with a car, for exactly the same reason, minimal protection for the bike rider
> when someone inevitably does something stupid.
>
> A car accident that just produces damaged metal can very easily result in the death of a
> bike rider.
>
> > Dont worry a bicycle with a head light as very visible at night as any who drives at night can
> > testify.
>
> Have fun explaining how she managed to run into the bike rider.
>
> > Trying to argue bikes are "much less visible than a car" is doomed to fail for them.
>

> visible than cars and everyone who drives much has got a rude surprise when one has shown up
> unexpectedly.
>
> > Anything said by ppl who werent there is irrelevent
>
> Wrong again. It should have been obvious to the cops whether the bike was actually being ridden on
> the footpath if they had been called to the accident scene.
>
> > and getting 2nd info from the police is even more irrelevent. Go to a solicitor, just for an
> > hour consultation, wont cost much.
>
> Much cheaper to approach the insurance company directly first and only consider a solicitor if
> they tell you to bugger off.
>
> > What he will tell you u can relay back to the husband (u dont need the solicitor to write a
> > letter at this point) which will be sufficient to put the ***** right up him.
>
> And if the insurance company just pays the claim, he's completely irrelevant.
>
> > You can potentially get thousands out of them if they mess with you.
>
> Only by risking substantial money on legal parasites.
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > MN <mness23nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3f63f5fe$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > >
> > > > Ive been riding to work for the past 8 months and have found it a pretty enjoyable
> > > > experiance unitl a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > > Riding will always be a high risk approach. Its not a matter of if the **** hits the fan, its
> > > a matter of when.
> > >
> > > And you have almost no protection against stupid mistakes. At least with a car its mostly just
> > > a bruised ego/metalwork.
> > >
> > > > Riding home at about 6.40 at night doing about 40 downhill on a main road (Prospect Rd
> > > > Adelaide) a car pulled out of a side street straight into me.
> > >
> > > Because you are MUCH less visible than a car.
> > >
> > > > The middle of the cars bonnet slammed into my side with most of the damage to the rear
> > > > wheel. Myself and the bike went flying over the bonnet flipped over and landed upside down
> > > > on the road with the bike on top of me. Lukily I was wearing a backpack with my work clothes
> > > > in it which cushioned the fall a little bit.
> > >
> > > Yep, you could easily have ended up dead. And that would have been extremely unlikely indeed
> > > in a car.
> > >
> > > > Anyway the lady that hit me was all apolagetic and even took me to the hospital where I
> > > > needed 10 stiches for a deep cut on my ankle. The next day she and her husband were around
> > > > my house claiming they wanted to see if I was alright. However they were more
interested
> > > > in informing me that since I had no lights it was my fault and they
wern't
> > > > paying. They soon shut up when I showed them the bike with backlight still working and front
> > > > light smashed from the accident. So they
agreed
> > > > to either pay or claim insurance depending on how much it would cost to fix the bike. I got
> > > > a quote (about $500) for my bike and also my watch which has a crack in the face and took it
> > > > to them today. The drivers husband claims when they reported the accident the police told
> > > > him they were not liable and he should do nothing ie not pay me or contact their insurance
> > > > company. The reason for this is that he now claims I was riding on the footpath. This is
> > > > obviously not true considering the speed I was travelling and the distance I ride
everyday.
> > > > Also how could the driver know if one minute she claims I had no
lights
> > > > and she didn't see me but now claims she did see me on the footpath.
> > >
> > > > Anyway I was wandering what I should do now or if anyone has any expeience in a similar
> > > > situation (and what my chances are if I have to sue her).
> > >
> > > You're almost guaranteed to win. As guaranteed as you can ever be with the legal system.
> > >
> > > > I estimate the damage to the car at around $500-$1000.
> > >
> > > Not relevant. What matters is the cost of your damages.
> > >
> > > Best to use the small claims system, if only to stop legal parasites pumping your pockets with
> > > such a clearcut case.
> > >
> > > > The driver was the only occupant of the car and does have comprehesive insurance.
> > >
> > > Best to just deal with their insurance company if you can find out who the insurance
> > > company is.
> > >
> > > > However she can barely speak english so ive been mostly speaking to her husband who's
> > > > english is only slightly better.
> > >
> > > And its quite likely that that is deliberately worse than it normally is. They're clearly
> > > trying every stunt they can.
> > >
> > > Contact the insurance company yourself if you can find out who the insurance company is. If
> > > you cant, use the small claims system.

In case you haven't worked it out yet it is a total waste of time having
: anything to do with Rod Speed he is a nutter from way back before the Internet

Oh I don't know. His opinion is good for a laugh. Its a total waste of time try to *argue* with
him as he is not really interested in your comment but rather just to incite you. Oh and his mouth
is a bit potty so if you are offended by language you may want to stay away. To say its a total
waste of time having anything to do with him is a bit harsh. I find his ranting and illogical
opinion quite amusing.

Pete