?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
Guest
Ziggy wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:55:49 GMT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> That isn't even remotely close to what he said.
>>>
>>>
>> I know, that is what I said! Are you suggesting that in every accident
>> situation it can only be the fault of the motorist - if a motorist is
>> actually involved in the accident?
>
> No.
>
>> Who gets the blame when two cyclist collide - is that distraction by a
>> passing motorist, so not their fault?
>
> Possible, but quite unlikely.
>
> Any more stupid questions?
Well, I'm only just getting on the wavelength of some of the posters
here so...
--
Moving things in still pictures!
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:55:49 GMT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> That isn't even remotely close to what he said.
>>>
>>>
>> I know, that is what I said! Are you suggesting that in every accident
>> situation it can only be the fault of the motorist - if a motorist is
>> actually involved in the accident?
>
> No.
>
>> Who gets the blame when two cyclist collide - is that distraction by a
>> passing motorist, so not their fault?
>
> Possible, but quite unlikely.
>
> Any more stupid questions?
Well, I'm only just getting on the wavelength of some of the posters
here so...
--
Moving things in still pictures!