I've had this on three or four occasions and the pillocks overtaking haven't had the excuse of restricted visibility either - they simply thought: Cyclist ahead. Must. Get. Past.
On a related note: An opinion piece in the local paper annoyed me a few days ago. I usually avoid reading it on principle knowing the that regular incumbent is an anti-cycling troll (among other faults) but a passage caught my eye as someone had written to him bemoaning the fact they'd received an advisory letter, which ruined their "unblemished 54 year driving record", due to close-passing a cyclist. Cue moaning about why don't the police catch proper criminals and motorist-hating cyclists with cameras then it finishes by saying that the correspondent recalled the incident and it was clearly the cyclist's fault because they were turning right. View attachment 436212 So many things wrong with that article.
I've had this on three or four occasions and the pillocks overtaking haven't had the excuse of restricted visibility either - they simply thought: Cyclist ahead. Must. Get. Past.
On a related note: An opinion piece in the local paper annoyed me a few days ago. I usually avoid reading it on principle knowing the that regular incumbent is an anti-cycling troll (among other faults) but a passage caught my eye as someone had written to him bemoaning the fact they'd received an advisory letter, which ruined their "unblemished 54 year driving record", due to close-passing a cyclist. Cue moaning about why don't the police catch proper criminals and motorist-hating cyclists with cameras then it finishes by saying that the correspondent recalled the incident and it was clearly the cyclist's fault because they were turning right. View attachment 436212 So many things wrong with that article.
It was one of them there new fangled electric ones that creep up on you
I've had this on three or four occasions and the pillocks overtaking haven't had the excuse of restricted visibility either - they simply thought: Cyclist ahead. Must. Get. Past.
On a related note: An opinion piece in the local paper annoyed me a few days ago. I usually avoid reading it on principle knowing the that regular incumbent is an anti-cycling troll (among other faults) but a passage caught my eye as someone had written to him bemoaning the fact they'd received an advisory letter, which ruined their "unblemished 54 year driving record", due to close-passing a cyclist. Cue moaning about why don't the police catch proper criminals and motorist-hating cyclists with cameras then it finishes by saying that the correspondent recalled the incident and it was clearly the cyclist's fault because they were turning right. View attachment 436212 So many things wrong with that article.
