You can't reasonably argue the logic in this, can you?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Are we allowed to unreasonably argue the logic in this, please Sir? :smile:
 

Tin Pot

Guru
If you'd seen the cyclist you wouldn't have hit them. Therefore the only ones you'd hit are the ones you don't see.
 

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
Should have gone to Specsavers.
 

surfdude

Veteran
Location
cornwall
well its because the lights reflect off the cyclist as they go through them and make it easier for cyclist to be seen by car drivers . when a car hits a cyclist the cyclist covers the windscreen of the car in a blur with their head and body blocking the view of the car driver as they fly off the car . hence the car driver didn't see them , just a blur . its a bit like my wife seeing me sitting down doing nothing but never seeing me do things around the house . its just one of life's mysterious
 

ayceejay

Guru
Location
Rural Quebec
I was nudged off the road the other Sunday by a driving school car. We had words me and the instructor and he told me (erroneously) that the law states that I, a cyclist, should be within 3 feet (in a metric province) of the side of the road. He reckoned that I was further out than that and therefore in "his" part of the road and presumably, logically he had a right to do with me whatever he chose.
Therefore: if in your mind a road belongs to cars by law anything not a car is outlaw and subject to whatever justice you deem appropriate.
 
Top Bottom