Jay-sus!

[GrumpyGregry]

Approaching blind summit of hill, a driver, as it turns out a 'Bunty type' driving a Jag in her Aquascutum gilet, gets right up my arse as I go past the final "SLOW" marking on this road...

... then proceeds to overtake approx 5mph faster than me and leaving me about 5mm of clearance as no way was the driver going to pull across the hazard line. I shouted, I screamed. In the end I kicked the rear door of the car.

Once over the crest the driver stopped and attempted to deliver a piece of their tiny mind to me. I explained they need not bother as I would be reporting them to Operation Crackdown, Sussex Police's anti-social driving campaign anyway.

Her best lines "I could not see if anything was coming the other way so I could not give you more room" vs "If you can't see if the road is crlear then you should not be overtaking"

"My husband will want to speak to you about the mark on the door. I hope you are insured" vs "Good luck, the police will want to speak to you about your bad driving"

and inevitably, in these parts, the double barrelled shotgun of "Why do you have to cycle down these lanes, anyway, you don't live around here" with a dash of "It isn't as if you pay road tax" vs "I have a right to cyle on these roads you have to be licensed to drive on them and I pay two lots of vehicle excise duty every year"

I thanked her for stopping to I could make a note of her reg number!

Reported to the plod.

 

[upsidedown]

Sounds familiar, Operation Crackdown sounds good; hope they have a word.

 

[NigC]

In the end I kicked the rear door of the car.

The number of times I've wanted to do this must be in the hundreds and all for that exact same reason. Most times though, the cars gone before I get a chance, and the other times I'm just too nice a person Usually I wait until they're out of earshot and tell them how much I "love" them

 

[downfader]

Sadly some drivers forget that the 2 second rule applies to when they wait behind cyclists for a safe overtaking opportunity. Many also fail to check their speedo before to establish if overtaking is even necessary.

You have my sympathies.

If the police ask about the boot you need to tell them "I needed both hands to brake, removing them would have seriously endangered me further!" A boot, like a palm slap to the roof of the car is a last moment proximity warning - I know many motorbikers who've used both after stupid overtakes.

You also have to explain to (hopefully a traffic officer) that if she was close enough to come into contact with the boot then she was FAR too close and failed rule 163 of the HCode and the general guidence of the 3 foot campaign.

Good luck!

 

[BentMikey]

Surely you didn't intend to damage the car, but to fend it off in the process of trying to save your life?

 

[Armegatron]

Surely you didn't intend to damage the car, but to fend it off in the process of trying to save your life?

+1 indeed

 

[Origamist]

Sounds nasty Greg - glad you're OK.

Without wanting to sound too pessimistic, I hope they don't go after you for criminal damage too.

 

[Rob3rt]

Sounds nasty Greg - glad you're OK.

Without wanting to sound too pessimistic, I hope they don't go after you for criminal damage too.

Glad you were unscathed but I'd have thought the same as Origamist to be honest, I'd have just told her she was a moron and let it be, by contacting the police you have invited a "your word against hers" situation, where her car has a boot streak up the door and she has now had time to twist/fabricate an excuse/alternative story, with no witness statements, its a bit sketchy.

 

[downfader]

Glad you were unscathed but I'd have thought the same as Origamist to be honest, I'd have just told her she was a moron and let it be, by contacting the police you have invited a "your word against hers" situation, where her car has a boot streak up the door and she has now had time to twist/fabricate an excuse/alternative story.

Not really. As I said above she's on to a losing streak if she mentions the boot as it proves she was far too close. In that situation you just react, you dont think, and I'm sure his reaction was to 1. brake and 2. warn of her dangerous proximity.

He does need a dedicated traffic copper, really though.

 

[Rob3rt]

Yes I see thats a fair arguement and lawfully correct, but he has no video evidence (or does he?), no witness statements, i.e. little defence should she fabricate an alternative story (basically lying!), especially when she gets home and hubby gets of the rails about his beautiful car and makes it hard for her to admit fault (which she was already reluctant to do so)!


I realise in these situations you just act, but lets face it, while you may be in the right, sometimes you need to go home and think it out then wait until when calm and collected before acting. I got knocked off a few weeks ago(luckily only a few scuffs and bruises and bike undamaged), driver was to blame, he turned into me without checking his mirrors, to which he admitted (however I didnt have brakes on my fixed), he gave me his details. I went home, thought about it, decided not to use his details unless there was some emerging injury or bike damage on closer inspection that was worth enough money to risk having to defend a counter claim due to him changing his story, because no witness's stopped(even though there were several), so if he suddenly changed the story to turn blame onto me, I wouldnt have much of a defence bar "look at the part of his car I hit".

 

[Origamist]

Not really. As I said above she's on to a losing streak if she mentions the boot as it proves she was far too close..

DF, she'll say Greg swerved towards her in an agressive manner and kicked out.

In that situation you just react, you dont think, and I'm sure his reaction was to 1. brake and 2. warn of her dangerous proximity.

If you wanted to get the driver's attention they'll ask why you didn't slam the window with your palm instead, (answer: you didn't want to take your hands off the handlebars in such a dangerous situation).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Thanks one and all. Why do people in large powerful cars overtake in the wrong gear so often? She had a auto box, it would have had kickdown, and when our SAAB kicksdown it goes like a rocket. But then if she could not see then she wouldn't want it to kickdown so why try the 'trickle past'.

Close overtakes down these lanes are a fact of life. You live with them, they are over in a flash. Close overtakes where the car is running alongside you for some distance are another ball game.

Sounds nasty Greg - glad you're OK.

Without wanting to sound too pessimistic, I hope they don't go after you for criminal damage too.

Good point. So do I. Didn't think of that, only that my right foot might undermine my moral high ground. 'Fessed up to it in the report.

It is a behaviour I could probably do with losing, picked up from all those years commuting in Sarf Laandan, when a boot was often the only way to make a driver aware you were there.

 

[downfader]

DF, she'll say Greg swerved towards her in an agressive manner and kicked out.



They might ask why you didn't slam the window with your palm instead, if you wanted to get the driver's attention (answer: you didn't want to take your hands off the handlebars in such a dangerous situation).

In reply to Para1. Simple reply is "not in your interests as its extremely unsafe". You also have the advantage that if they question her and take a statement that if she's prone to fibs it will come out.

The worst they can say is "we cant decide, go through the insurers". And this is the reason I got into cameras. It may not be a perfect record but it is a record.

 

[Rob3rt]

Good point. So do I. Didn't think of that, only that my right foot might undermine my moral high ground. 'Fessed up to it in the report.

It is a behaviour I could probably do with losing, picked up from all those years commuting in Sarf Laandan, when a boot was often the only way to make a driver aware you were there.

Good on you for admitting to this in the report rather than pretending to be an angel, this will make it much easier for you to defend you possition should she fabricate an incident, since you can say you admit you kicked the car, and voluntarily provided this information to the police with the incident report.


Personally I just either deal with things on the spot if its worth the hassle, or avoid the follow-up to a confrontation. I'd be more inclined for heated arguement in the street then consider it over and done with

 

[Origamist]

In reply to Para1. Simple reply is "not in your interests as its extremely unsafe". You also have the advantage that if they question her and take a statement that if she's prone to fibs it will come out. .

And you go back and forward and the waters are muddied and it becomes less about what the driver did, and more about what you did. I've been there...

The worst they can say is "we cant decide, go through the insurers". And this is the reason I got into cameras. It may not be a perfect record but it is a record.

My guess is that no police action will be taken with regard to both parties (apart from a talking to).

My camera will be on my bike by mid-May.