Re: Joining the dreaded list ...

["Leatherbiker" <leatherbiker@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't want to milk this subject.
Let's just say that the left-hand junction was pretty invisible
because of trees, cars in front and the distraction of the
bright pelican crossing lights. I don't know if that helps my
case or not. Are you really supposed to spot an insignificant
side-road late at night from more than about 50 yards? If so,
then half of London would call for better lighting!
The policeman himself said that overtaking within the first
zigzags was an endorsable offence, but I maintained that I had
started long before the crossing and rather than brake, felt it
better to continue, given that all the lights were green.
It's kind of retrospective logic really on my part. Looking
back, I was just too keen to get past the two cars and shouldn't
really have done it. Having said that, there shouldn't have been
any danger involved from any other party.

The question of speeding didn't really arise, for the simple
reason that neither of the two cars in front stopped long enough
for anyone to even see the make, let alone the reg. no. and talk
to the drivers. So if I say they were doing a max. of 25 mph,
they may have to believe me. After all, I doubt whether the taxi
in the sideroad could really see how fast the cars were going.

> The same applies, incidentally, if a bike is overtaking a car
which
> turns right. It's (almost always) idiotic riding, but the
driver is
> (in terms of insurance) liable for the accident.

What martian logic is this based on? Given that overtaking a
turning car on the right is both dangerous and illegal.

Tim



 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 The ST Mailing list is sponsored by the Unofficial ST Website
   http://www.TriumphNet.com/st for ST and Mailing List info

=-=-=-= Next Message =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=