"The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"

[Origamist]

You said it yourself: if the driver's looking left, he can't possibly be looking right at the same time!

I would not expect anyone to look left and right simultaneously when pulling out of a junction, but the driver, by his own admission, did not check it was clear to his right before proceeding!

 

[Globalti]

The cyclist was an idiot; he saw the emerging car in plenty of time and if he had had an ounce of commone sense and humility he would have stopped and allowed the driver to come out. Instead he thought it would be fun to try out his new helmet cam and punish the driver.

The funny thing is that many many years ago when I was unemployed, poor, angry and resentful, I probably would have done the same thing if I'd been able to afford a bicycle and a helmet camera. I hated everybody.

 

[Lemond]

Anyone that approaches a junction at that speed and from behind a line of stationery cars is just asking for trouble. He should take some responsibility for his own foolish attitude.

 

[benb]

Im just gonna develop this a bit more so bare with me....
Suppose there are two airplanes, 10 miles apart, travelling at x knots, and in parallel in the same direction. The plane on the left then turns right slightly thus making a collision path with the other air plane. The plane that has changed direction has a radar that's not working. The plane that continues going straight has a fully functioning radar and can see it is on a collision course. The pilot has 5 minutes to change his course to avert a collision. But he doesn't want to and thinks "why the heck should I change course, its not my fault the other pilot changed direction". In addition, due to some air plane rules, the pilot going straight has the right of way.

In 5 minutes from now, they crash. An investigation follows. What would the conclusion be?

That analogy doesn't stand up, as it wasn't a technical fault that caused the driver to pull out without checking, and the cyclist did take some avoiding action (a little late, granted).
A better one is that pilot A has been cleared all the way to a runway, but an unobservant pilot B in another plane, not bothering to check their flight plan or radar, changes onto an intercept course. The pilot A reacts too late to avoid the crash that pilot B caused.

 

[glenn forger]

Drivers who move their vehicles into a space they haven't checked kill people:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-27037766

That driver was reversing without looking and killed a child. This idiot proven liar driver was driving FORWARDS and not bothering to look at the space he was driving into.

 

[Arrowfoot]

The lie is not as material in this case. It was avoidable. I am sure many of us would have avoided an incident of this nature because the way we ride, anitcipate possibilities and keeping a proper lookout. The moment he saw the gap between the cars, he should have realised that courtesy is being practised to allow those in sidelanes to come out. This is an attemtion seeking chap with a misplaced sense of right of way in comparison to his own life.

I don't see much damage and Insurance conpanies like all businesses will "write-off" things of little value and being a nuisance / noise. They also found the perfect excuse of using the motorist lie to lump on him.

 

[Profpointy]

It's been stated that the insurance paid out. It's hard to imagine what, if any, damage the cyclist was being compensated for. He clearly didn't fall off, but saw fit to sling his bike down the road - presumably causing it more damage than the (non?-) collision

 

[glenn forger]

You think driving without looking is harmless? Or do you think insurance companies pay out when no harm is caused by a lying driver who doesn't look where he's going?

 

[Profpointy]

You think driving without looking is harmless? Or do you think insurance companies pay out when no harm is caused by a lying driver who doesn't look where he's going?

have you watched the video?

 

[glenn forger]

The video's been updated. Neither the police nor the lying driver's insurer attached any blame to the cyclist.

 

[Profpointy]

The video's been updated. Neither the police nor the lying driver's insurer attached any blame to the cyclist.

so what do you think the cyclist claimed for; hurt feelings?

 

[glenn forger]

What you asking me for? Ask him, and go to the cops while you're at it and explain why you think they're wrong and you're right.

 

[dodgy]

Why are you so angry, Glenn?

 

[glenn forger]

Look at the video, almost everything you've just claimed is entirely incorrect. If you disagree then lobby parliament to change the law. Why continue arguing when the claim's settled and the cops confirm the driver is the party at fault? It's like arguing gravy causes freckles.

 

[Profpointy]

Look at the video, almost everything you've just claimed is entirely incorrect. If you disagree then lobby parliament to change the law. Why continue arguing when the claim's settled and the cops confirm the driver is the party at fault? It's like arguing gravy causes freckles.

would you / do you ride like that yourself?