On 30 Oct, 10:25, "mileburner"  wrote:
> "Keitht" <KeithT> wrote in message
>
> news:Bp6dncJ2oJGeLXfXnZ2dnUVZ7r2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> > John Wright > wrote:
>
> >> In this case it might not have been discussed so extensively if both
> >> people had not been at fault in some way.  Hence also the thread title.
> >> Its not as clear cut as *some* cyclists would have it - there are
> >> failings on both sides.
>
> > Which is how I read it from the beginning but no-one has slagged me off
> > about saying so. Am I being too reasonable for URC?
> > I guess I need to be completely polarised and anti-car or anti-bike but I
> > keep stalling between two fools.
>
> The cyclist will no doubt take a little more care when faced with this
> situation again and may ride more sedately in places. We live and learn.
> However, NM's question was "Who is liable for the damage". It is quite clear
> who is liable, it is quite clear who is at fault. But that does not mean
> that the "innocent" party could have taken more care. Over the years I have
> avoided many accidents which would not have been my fault, but that would
> not have made them my fault if I had allowed them to happen.

I think the innocent party did take care, she stopped.