R
Ride Your Bike
Guest
"Lindsay Rowlands" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ride your bike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : "Lindsay Rowlands" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> :>
> :> There is nothing in the OP to indicate that the actions of the cyclist were premeditated; if
> :> anything, the cyclist acted to avoid a
collision -
>
> : He didn't avoid a collision.
>
> Pardon? The cyclist avoided a collision with the pedestrian harassing him by pushing him out of
> the way. The juvenile delinquent fell over his own bike that he had laid down on the road so that
> he could harass the
approaching
> cyclist. I don't particularly want to be rude, but how clearly does it
need
> to be spelt out before you begin to understand?
>
> :> albeit by an unusual method. That is the limit of one's legal and
moral
> :> obligation.
> :>
> : As per most vehicle codes, even when you have the right of way, you're
not
> : allowed to take it if it results in an accident.
>
> OUT OF CONTEXT! My statement above refers to the action of the cyclist in trying to avoid a
> collision - which he did!!!
He had the choice to stop and he did not. He pushed the kid, that is a collision.
Watch my lips: the cyclist
> pushed the kid out of the way; they were trying to avoid a collision! The OP has already declared
> that they were certain they could not stop in the little distance left to them. Sheesh!
>
> For penance, please read every posting on this thread (in your case,
maybe
> twice), particularly the original one, then come back with some insight that may have been
> overlooked.
Anyone who thinks pushing a kid out of their way when they could have stopped is correct action
needs a little insight.
news:[email protected]...
> ride your bike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : "Lindsay Rowlands" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:[email protected]...
> :>
> :> There is nothing in the OP to indicate that the actions of the cyclist were premeditated; if
> :> anything, the cyclist acted to avoid a
collision -
>
> : He didn't avoid a collision.
>
> Pardon? The cyclist avoided a collision with the pedestrian harassing him by pushing him out of
> the way. The juvenile delinquent fell over his own bike that he had laid down on the road so that
> he could harass the
approaching
> cyclist. I don't particularly want to be rude, but how clearly does it
need
> to be spelt out before you begin to understand?
>
> :> albeit by an unusual method. That is the limit of one's legal and
moral
> :> obligation.
> :>
> : As per most vehicle codes, even when you have the right of way, you're
not
> : allowed to take it if it results in an accident.
>
> OUT OF CONTEXT! My statement above refers to the action of the cyclist in trying to avoid a
> collision - which he did!!!
He had the choice to stop and he did not. He pushed the kid, that is a collision.
Watch my lips: the cyclist
> pushed the kid out of the way; they were trying to avoid a collision! The OP has already declared
> that they were certain they could not stop in the little distance left to them. Sheesh!
>
> For penance, please read every posting on this thread (in your case,
maybe
> twice), particularly the original one, then come back with some insight that may have been
> overlooked.
Anyone who thinks pushing a kid out of their way when they could have stopped is correct action
needs a little insight.