Originally Posted by
myrridin
...The problem is that you do not appear to be accepting that you were at fault at all.
No, this is merely your claim, it is not borne out in the text of this thread. This is the logical fallacy of attacking a straw man. Had I legitimately denied any culpability, you would have cause to continue beating me up over it. As it stands, I have admitted culpability.
Originally Posted by
myrridin
The crux of the issue is that even with the pedestrians violating the "rules of the MUP" if you had been traveling at a safe speed then no collision would have occurred. That such a collision occurred is defacto evidence that you were traveling too fast.
This is a presumption and the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" or, in english, "after therefore because of". I was riding fast and hit someone, therefore I hit someone because I was riding fast.