Law breaking scousers again.

A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit by a car in Liverpool city centre.

The emergency services were called out to Hanover Street at around 4.25pm today ( Tuesday) following reports of a crash between a cyclist and a car.

The cyclist suffered a cut to his face and was taken to hospital.

Police closed the road while emergency workers dealt with the scene and Hanover Street re-opened at around 4.50pm.

READ MORE:EncroChat dealer 'butterflyjuice' brought down after profiting from others' misery

Police are now appealing for information.

A spokesperson said to the ECHO : "We received a call at 4.25pm today, Tuesday 31st August, to reports of a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a car on Hanover Street.

"The male cyclist was taken to hospital with a laceration to his face.

"The road reopened at 4.50pm. Enquiries into the collision remain ongoing.

"Anyone with information is asked to DM @MerPolCC or @MerPolTraffic quoting log 666 of 31st August."

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cyclist-hit-car-busy-city-21449708

On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Law breaking scousers again.
>
> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>
These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't they
not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?

On Friday, 3 September 2021 at 11:36:32 UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Law breaking scousers again.
>
> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>
> The emergency services were called out to Hanover Street at around 4.25pm today ( Tuesday) following reports of a crash between a cyclist and a car.
>
> The cyclist suffered a cut to his face and was taken to hospital.
>
> Police closed the road while emergency workers dealt with the scene and Hanover Street re-opened at around 4.50pm.
>
> READ MORE:EncroChat dealer 'butterflyjuice' brought down after profiting from others' misery
>
> Police are now appealing for information.
>
> A spokesperson said to the ECHO : "We received a call at 4.25pm today, Tuesday 31st August, to reports of a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a car on Hanover Street.
>
> "The male cyclist was taken to hospital with a laceration to his face.
>
> "The road reopened at 4.50pm. Enquiries into the collision remain ongoing.
>
> "Anyone with information is asked to DM @MerPolCC or @MerPolTraffic quoting log 666 of 31st August."
>
> https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cyclist-hit-car-busy-city-21449708

Last time I was in Liverpool Hanover St was off limit to motor vehicles except buses. No doubt Nugents will either correct this or come up with some excuse for a motorist to break the law.

On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Law breaking scousers again.
>> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
>> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>>
> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't they
> not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?

Whose fault was the collision?

On 03/09/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
> On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Law breaking scousers again.
>>> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
>>> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>>>
>> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't they
>> not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?
>
> Whose fault was the collision?

It certainly wasn't the car. The crash would not have happened had the
driver, for the sake of personal convenience, not created a danger.

On 04/09/2021 11:33 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 03/09/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>> On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Law breaking scousers again.
>>>> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
>>>> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>>>>
>>> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't
>>> they not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?
>>
>> Whose fault was the collision?
>
> It certainly wasn't the car. The crash would not have happened had the
> driver, for the sake of personal convenience, not created a danger.

Whose fault was the collision?

If you don't know, it would be at least honest of you to say so.

On 04/09/2021 15:43, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/09/2021 11:33 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 03/09/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Law breaking scousers again.
>>>>> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
>>>>> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>>>>>
>>>> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't
>>>> they not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?
>>>
>>> Whose fault was the collision?
>>
>> It certainly wasn't the car. The crash would not have happened had the
>> driver, for the sake of personal convenience, not created a danger.
>
> Whose fault was the collision?
>
> If you don't know, it would be at least honest of you to say so.

I have told you. It wasn't the car. When a person chooses a means of
transport known to be hazardous to all and sundry, that person bears
most responsibility.

On 04/09/2021 05:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 04/09/2021 15:43, JNugent wrote:
>> On 04/09/2021 11:33 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Law breaking scousers again.
>>>>>> A cyclist was taken to hospital with a facial injury after he was hit
>>>>>> by a car in Liverpool city centre.
>>>>>>
>>>>> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why can't
>>>>> they not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a driver"?
>
>>>> Whose fault was the collision?
>
>>> It certainly wasn't the car. The crash would not have happened had
>>> the driver, for the sake of personal convenience, not created a danger.
>
>> Whose fault was the collision?
>
>> If you don't know, it would be at least honest of you to say so.
>
> I have told you.

You definitely have not.

> It wasn't the car. When a person chooses a means of
> transport known to be hazardous to all and sundry, that person bears
> most responsibility.

OK, you want the car-driver to be at fault but in conscience (which is a
good sign), you can't bring yourself to assert that because you don't
know it to be true.

So you choose evasion rather than the correct answer, which would be
that you don't know who was at fault.

On 04/09/2021 17:56, JNugent wrote:
> On 04/09/2021 05:34 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 04/09/2021 15:43, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2021 11:33 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2021 15:27, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 03/09/2021 01:36 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/09/2021 11:36, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Law breaking scousers again. A cyclist was taken to
>>>>>>> hospital with a facial injury after he was hit by a car
>>>>>>> in Liverpool city centre.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> These self-driving cars are a menace. On the other hand why
>>>>>> can't they not bring themselves to say he was "hit by a
>>>>>> driver"?
>>
>>>>> Whose fault was the collision?
>>
>>>> It certainly wasn't the car. The crash would not have happened
>>>> had the driver, for the sake of personal convenience, not
>>>> created a danger.
>>
>>> Whose fault was the collision?
>>
>>> If you don't know, it would be at least honest of you to say so.
>>
>> I have told you.
>
> You definitely have not.
>
>> It wasn't the car. When a person chooses a means of transport known
>> to be hazardous to all and sundry, that person bears most
>> responsibility.
>
> OK, you want the car-driver to be at fault but in conscience (which
> is a good sign), you can't bring yourself to assert that because you
> don't know it to be true. >
> So you choose evasion rather than the correct answer, which would be
> that you don't know who was at fault.

I am surprised that you didn't write a tedious essay about the workings
of the law. Yes, it would be a good idea to have presumed liability in
this country.