StressedDave wrote:I'm afraid that you've read my post, put your own interpretation on it and are now conflating your belief with what was written.
I don't subscribe to the theory that if a cyclist is involved in an accident then the motorist is to blame. Everyone I know/knew in the accident investigation fraternity considers it without credibility. I leave the definition of blame up to those wearing wigs. My point, which you seem unable too pick up, is that cyclists can, in the absence of all rationality, move themselves into a position to collide with a mechanically propelled vehicle without understanding the need for the conductor of said vehicle to have sufficient time to react and actually deal with the issue not of their making.
If a pedestrian walks into the path of a car, leaving the car driver insufficient time to react and brake, is the car driver to 'blame''? The same rules apply to cyclists - you cannot automatically assign blame to a motorist on the basis that the other party is more vulnerable. All road users owe a duty of care to each other, irrespective of their vulnerability.
Clip-clop...
So, please explain how any individual can read somebody else's words and NOT put their own interpretation on it. That is an unavoidable consequence of communication. The fact that your text CAN be interpreted in more than one way seems to have eluded you.
In the post in question, you simply mentioned cyclist presenting a danger to themselves and those who hit them. Now you want to expand on that by specifying something that wasn't in your original post to negate any ambiguity. There was no mention of drivers ever being at fault, and indeed you could transpose drivers and cyclists in the above and make an equally valid point. Considering the amount of pontification on this site about the general standard of driving, and how 'advanced' training makes us so much better, to tar all cyclists with the same brush is astonishing.
Strangely Brown wrote:Inference is what *you* took from it. Implication would be if SD had intended something unwritten. You read something that wasn't there.
My grasp of English is quite good thanks, and my use of the word "inference" is correct. Please see the first two sentences of my reply to Dave. Your first two sentences do not in any way prove the third.