mr_hippo said:
Hippo, you wheel this argument out with tedious regularity. As you're fond of showing off your Latin, you'll be familiar with the phrase reductio ad absurdum. Your interpretation of that section of the highway code certainly pushes the boundaries of the absurd. Arch could have avoided the incident by not riding her bike that day. She could have avoided the incident by staying at home and making cakes. There are a million and one things she might have done to avoid the incident, but that doesn't make her responsible for the incident when it happens.
As I've noted before, you're also very fond of accusing people of illiteracy. I encourage you to read Arch's OP. From her description, Arch was already performing the turn when the driver chose (as Sharkey has already noted - the driver's choice, not Arch's) to put her in danger unnecessarily .
You suggest that Arch might have let the car turn in. I've no problem with that and do it myself occasionally if the situation merits it. But Arch chose not to, and that's also reasonable and in line with the highway code. The driver chose to turn in alongside Arch and make a close pass. That's both unreasonable and against the highway code's guidelines.
Oh, please don't bother with the bit where you or lit/col pop up to tell me I've not read your post - it's getting very tired.
