Is there any way to change the narrative?

[50000tears]

So, since I observed her in the spot for 30 seconds do I meet with approval then?

There is no need for approval I was just stating what I would do. As far as I can see waiting for a few seconds or not is down to choice and riders will differ in this, neither is necessarily the better option. As you waited 30 secs then it appears that you handled the situation as I would have. Another thread when there is disagreement, or none in this case, over minor detail where there is no right or wrong just options.

Classic33, Sara said the rear of the car was on the pavement so I still don't see a scenario in which I would be behind it. more likely I would have hung back so wouldn't be that close to the car at all. But as wasn't there no way to know for sure.

 

[classic33]

Place yourself in a car, instead of on a bike, and ask yourself the same question. Then ask yourself the same question from a pedestian point of view. Forced to take to the road, between two vehicles, because one person thought it was okay for them to park illegally for their benefit.

 

[classic33]

There is no need for approval I was just stating what I would do. As far as I can see waiting for a few seconds or not is down to choice and riders will differ in this, neither is necessarily the better option. As you waited 30 secs then it appears that you handled the situation as I would have. Another thread when there is disagreement, or none in this case, over minor detail where there is no right or wrong just options.

Classic33, Sara said the rear of the car was on the pavement so I still don't see a scenario in which I would be behind it. more likely I would have hung back so wouldn't be that close to the car at all. But as wasn't there no way to know for sure.

Your intention being to take the path now blocked with a car, whilst being on the road.

 

[50000tears]

Place yourself in a car, instead of on a bike, and ask yourself the same question. Then ask yourself the same question from a pedestian point of view. Forced to take to the road, between two vehicles, because one person thought it was okay for them to park illegally for their benefit.

Why do you insist on continuing with this. Is waiting a few seconds so unreasonable to you?

In a car I would presumably be forced to wait if another vehicle was blocking my way. I would probably swear to myself and sound the horn if they didn't look like they were going to move, so again a few seconds. As a pedestrian I guess I am on the pavement that the car is now sitting on. If I saw it arrive I would pass behind it quickly. I can easily see if the reverse lights are on so can make a quick decision to pass. If I am to enter the park I would probably ask her to move.

I have been clear throughout that the driver was completely in the wrong but that doesn't mean I am not going to take every precaution before gap squeezing.

 

[50000tears]

Your intention being to take the path now blocked with a car, whilst being on the road.

What are you talking about? I would not be on the path at any point and have never suggested I would be.

 

[bonsaibilly]

Place yourself in a car, instead of on a bike, and ask yourself the same question. Then ask yourself the same question from a pedestian point of view. Forced to take to the road, between two vehicles, because one person thought it was okay for them to park illegally for their benefit.

I thought there was only one vehicle involved, but in any event assumptions were made that were at best 50/50 so yes, I would have hung back.

 

[fossyant]

Cyclists are the sludge of the world according to most. Got jumped by a lass at some lights near work, she ran red just to get to college 100 yards further on. This is what get's drivers.

I don't defend our silly folk, but I do say to colleagues, there are idiots everywhere !

 

[classic33]

I thought there was only one vehicle involved, but in any event assumptions were made that were at best 50/50 so yes, I would have hung back.

Is a bicycle not a vehicle in your eyes then?

 

[bonsaibilly]

Is a bicycle not a vehicle in your eyes then?

In your challenge you've replaced the cyclist with "a pedestian" so there is only one vehicle. Not that it makes a difference to my perspective on this. Assumptions were made. They turned out to be the wrong ones. The cyclist wants to be absolved of any responsibility. They can't handle an alternative reading of the situation so they try to belittle those who dare to suggest it.
BB

 

[markharry66]

I have come to the conclusion as a cyclist we allow ourselfs to be mistreated. The point is quite simple its a public right of way.
Access should not be blocked. Its a public park not a parking space. I personally would have done the same.
The driver is responsible for their own driving and should have looked before pulling out.

 

[Origamist]

Come on, it's not a case of "approval". What did you want out of posting this thread in the first place? Universal solidarity against drivers? "Did I get it right?" Me: "No, I don't think so from what you said."

I just think that the scenario called for waiting up. Or you could have sidled up and asked what her intentions were. Or stopped and walked. Or whatever.

"But why should I?"

Indeed. It's your prerogative. That not everyone agrees with the decisions you took is theirs.

BB

That's a counsel of perfection though.

If you had waited 20 secs and then the vehicle moved....You should have waited for longer... Why did you bother waiting at all...

You know how this line of argument goes: the reasonableness of "what ifs" keeps the internet cables whirring.

 

[classic33]

In your challenge you've replaced the cyclist with "a pedestian" so there is only one vehicle. Not that it makes a difference to my perspective on this. Assumptions were made. They turned out to be the wrong ones. The cyclist wants to be absolved of any responsibility. They can't handle an alternative reading of the situation so they try to belittle those who dare to suggest it.
BB

Not quite true. If you're going to say I said something please note more than that was said.

 

[jefmcg]

If I was driving behind a car and it stopped blocking the roadway and put on hazard lights I'd assume that it was stopped for a while. It would not occur to me to wait behind, as the lights clearly indicate there is no immediate intention to move again. If there was room for me to safely squeeze past the car while it was stationary, I would do so. As I driver, I would be shocked if a car stopped in the carriage way, put on emergency lights and then moved again without even taking a shoulder check.

That's all @Sara_H did. Can we stop blaming the victim here?

 

[bonsaibilly]

How can a car stop and block a roadway while at the same time allowing a following car to safely squeeze past? Either the roadway is blocked and squeezing past isn't safe, or the roadway isn't blocked. In any event the very concept of squeezing past suggests an awareness of heightened risk-taking.

I don't think anyone's blaming the cyclist per se - if anything the majority posters on the thread have been blaming/victimising/stereotyping/insulting the elderly driving community. It depends though if you define the cyclist as the victim in the given scenario. Which I don't.

In your scenario you also have: assumed this / would not occur to you that / if there was room I would safely squeeze etc etc. A lot of assumptions and case-specific decisions to be made. I think it was established earlier in the thread that the coming to a stop and employment of hazard lights in the location that it happened was an unusual and illegal parking and use of the hazard lights, so as a road-user encountering such a situation I would think that would give me enough sensory information to think "expect the unexpected here". Rather than, "tut, bloody pensioners parking up at the bowling club - oh well I'll just squeeze past without signalling my intent".
BB

 

[classic33]

How can a car stop and block a roadway while at the same time allowing a following car to safely squeeze past? Either the roadway is blocked and squeezing past isn't safe, or the roadway isn't blocked. In any event the very concept of squeezing past suggests an awareness of heightened risk-taking.

I don't think anyone's blaming the cyclist per se - if anything the majority posters on the thread have been blaming/victimising/stereotyping/insulting the elderly driving community. It depends though if you define the cyclist as the victim in the given scenario. Which I don't.

In your scenario you also have: assumed this / would not occur to you that / if there was room I would safely squeeze etc etc. A lot of assumptions and case-specific decisions to be made. I think it was established earlier in the thread that the coming to a stop and employment of hazard lights in the location that it happened was an unusual and illegal parking and use of the hazard lights, so as a road-user encountering such a situation I would think that would give me enough sensory information to think "expect the unexpected here". Rather than, "tut, bloody pensioners parking up at the bowling club - oh well I'll just squeeze past without signalling my intent".
BB

Already said what I've done in similar circumstances, and that I'd do what the OP did with no hesitation.
I'm struggling to find anyone who said there was room for a car to get past as well as why you'd be happy to sit in the road behind a vehicle that may just reverse out on you.