Smashed into a stationary car and broke off wing mirror. Ouch,ouch,ouch

[CopperBrompton]

Indeed they do. So we should ride/drive accordingly.

Indeed, just as we should avoid cycling into wing mirrors. If we fail, we pay up.

 

[theclaud]

Indeed, just as we should avoid cycling into wing mirrors. If we fail, we pay up.

People, cars... different things.

 

[400bhp]

Anything is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Perhaps.

Price of everything and the value of nothing.....

Depends how you look at it.

 

[CopperBrompton]

People, cars... different things.

People, bicycles... different things.

 

[BrianEvesham]

I am yet to meet a honest person who would not like a better car.

I am an honest person who doesn't want a better car. I hate wasting money on cars. My last purchase 3 years ago was an Astra G for £750, it's been faultless requiring nothing doing, even for its mot's.

 

[Dan B]

Given the number of vehicles (to be fair, more vans than cars) I see with door mirrors apparently held on by gaffer tape, I question the assertion that a broken mirror is a rare occurence.

People, cars... different things.

People, bicycles... different things.

You are both correct. theclaud's point I take to be that violence against the person (witting or unwitting) is - at least in her world view - a much more serious proposition than violence against inanimate objects, so analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies. Trikeman I'm not sure what your point is. Is anyone offering analogies in which damage to people and damage to bicycles is being compared?

 

[Dan B]

I believe myself to be a reasonably honest person, but I have to say the only ways in which I'd want my car to be better woud be that it had inifinite luggage space, ran on air, and could fold up into my pocket when I arrive at my desitination so I had no trouble finding parking. But then it wouldn't really be a car by the currentlly accepted definition.

That said, if the casing on the nearside door mirror were fixed, that would be a bonus

 

[CopperBrompton]

theclaud's point I take to be that violence against the person (witting or unwitting) is - at least in her world view - a much more serious proposition than violence against inanimate objects

Of course it is. What has that to do with paying for property we damage?

 

[Dan B]

Of course it is. What has that to do with paying for property we damage?

Analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies.

Sorry, I thought I'd already said that in the post you responded to

 

[CopperBrompton]

Analogies which involve knocking someone off their bike are not really very good analogies.

If someone damages a cyclist's property without injuring the cyclist, should they be able to refuse to pay for it because they considered the property unnecessarily expensive? That is the only question being asked here.

 

[Dogtrousers]

He is paying for it. No one has disputed that it was his fault. But in my view it's not reasonable to design unnecessarily expensive and vulnerable peripheries for use on a car on public roads, and then get narked when the damage is expensive.

Aren't modern STI brifters a decent comparison with modern wing mirrors? They stick out, they're vulnerable and they are idiotically expensive. And - like heated/automatic wing mirrors they are pure optional gimmickry. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are more gimmicky than heated/automatic mirrors, as the latter offer some genuine benefits, whereas brifters offer the sum total of sod all, apart from not needing to move your hand a few inches to the downtube.

An now consider how expensive those brifters are as a percentage of the whole bike. Jeez, we're talking about 10-20% of the price of the bike in some cases. And for what? Saving a brief straightening of the elbow joint. Bah!

So what point am I making? Well none really.

I'm just being an old fart who rather regrets having spent money on a modern bike only to find that he really prefers shifters on the down tube having a rant at the world. Don't mind me. I'm going for a lie down now.

 

[theclaud]

Aren't modern STI brifters a decent comparison with modern wing mirrors? They stick out, they're vulnerable and they are idiotically expensive. And - like heated/automatic wing mirrors they are pure optional gimmickry. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are more gimmicky than heated/automatic mirrors, as the latter offer some genuine benefits, whereas brifters offer the sum total of sod all, apart from not needing to move your hand a few inches to the downtube.

An now consider how expensive those brifters are as a percentage of the whole bike. Jeez, we're talking about 10-20% of the price of the bike in some cases. And for what? Saving a brief straightening of the elbow joint. Bah!

So what point am I making? Well none really.

I'm just being an old fart who rather regrets having spent money on a modern bike only to find that he really prefers shifters on the down tube having a rant at the world. Don't mind me. I'm going for a lie down now.

I'll have your unwanted STIs then, you old fart.

 

[theclaud]

If someone damages a cyclist's property without injuring the cyclist, should they be able to refuse to pay for it because they considered the property unnecessarily expensive? That is the only question being asked here.

It's the only question you're asking, but then you have a talent for oversimplification.

 

[CopperBrompton]

It's the only question you're asking, but then you have a talent for oversimplification.

I've been onto the Nuance shop - they're getting some more stock in on Tuesday.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'll have your unwanted STIs then, you old fart.

You know, if you could source and fit shifters for my downtube that index OK with my 10 speed SRAM mech I might even consider it. I think friction-shifting a 10 speed might be a bit fiddly.