This mornings idiot

[Bollo]

When Bollo abstains from the postprandial port, he talks a lot of sense.

In vino veritas

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

The cyclist has priority, he was almost overtaking the other cyclist (quite legitimately) and was forced to change his riding due to a knob in a car who doesn't want to abide by the rules as it's only a cyclist.

 

[BentMikey]

I think Cab was fine in taking primary and making the motorist slow down, although in fairness I couldn't see that driver demonstrating any signs of speed or aggression. Where he gets militant is the angry and whining lecture he gave the car driver. That was out of order and unnecessary.

 

[Cab]

i suspect you're having to repeat yourself because despite the opinions of so many fellow cyclists suggesting you might be in the wrong you're completely unwilling to admit the possibility your actions were unnecessary.

So the others voicing support mean I'm right then?

Your repeating yourself in the whole debate has basically consisted of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "i'm right i'm right im right" (no doubt while you squeeze your bike between two hgvs, eyes closed, before stopping an old lady in a 2CV to tell her she's far too close to your bike).

So, you haven't read the thread then (even my response to your post where I explained that the bus and the van were static). I've explained what happens at that location if you don't do as I did; do you dispute that claim? Have you ridden there? Once? Twice? Frequently? Never?

 

[Cab]

I promised myself that I would not comment any more on numpty cyclists displaying their imcompetence and blaming other road users but...
Have you read the Highway Code and I don't mean just looked at the pretty pictures? From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069856
What do you think "Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." means?
It may help if you change your user name here and on youtube to "R Sole".

Points already dealt with, read the damn thread, and stop being insulting.

 

[Cab]

I think Cab was fine in taking primary and making the motorist slow down, although in fairness I couldn't see that driver demonstrating any signs of speed or aggression. Where he gets militant is the angry and whining lecture he gave the car driver. That was out of order and unnecessary.

This harks back to a plint I made in Magnatoms thread.

You think its un-necessary... Well, okay, fine, but so what? Are we now compelled never to tell others when they've made an error because it isn't strictly speaking necessary?

I also dispute whether its unnecessary. You see the same cars, same drivers, on the same section of road, day in, day out. Dunno about that particular driver, but I know for a fact that those I've stopped there and told not to do it again have behaved better when I've come across them again, at the same point. Bluntly, making enough noise such that passers by stare at the situation, such that you actually get heard through the glass, well, it works. Necessary? Only in the interest of making the road safer.

 

[MacB]

Cab, it's a forum, discussion, disagreement, and all that, you proffered up the vid and explanation. We merely viewed, assessed and commented, maybe the video does portray the situation badly, in which case you shouldn't have posted it in support of your point. The lecture to the driver, and the 'you'll be on youtube in an hour, you will', didn't come across too well. But that's only my opinion, if all you ever want to hear is you were right then the net isn't the place for that

 

[Cab]

Cab, it's a forum, discussion, disagreement, and all that, you proffered up the vid and explanation. We merely viewed, assessed and commented, maybe the video does portray the situation badly, in which case you shouldn't have posted it in support of your point. The lecture to the driver, and the 'you'll be on youtube in an hour, you will', didn't come across too well. But that's only my opinion, if all you ever want to hear is you were right then the net isn't the place for that

The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act.

Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.

 

[col]

The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act.

Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.

Your glowering guy is going to be your undoing eventually, when he decides being threatened with public humiliation, even if he did nothing wrong, or made a mistake, when he was forcibly stopped and lectured even with plenty of room and he was moving slowly anyway. You really need to see it from another perspective, if not for all cyclists sakes, as we are it seems being seen more like you and others, but for your own good too.

If you cant see the point people are making, then your very blinkered in your ways, and i dont like the idea of being generalised into a group that do what you and others do with drivers just to prove something. There isnt a collective name for your group, but im sure someone could suggest some.

 

[MacB]

The 'you'll be on youtube' line really does work. If you've got a guy glowering at you, point at the camera and say he'll be on youtube, most often you see a complete tranformation in how they act.

Your idea that robustly correcting criticism that is incorrect shows a lack of being willing to engage with criticism... I find that odd.

Let's put it another way if, at some point in the future, I see one of your videos portraying a very dark tunnel with lots of background screaming, I won't be surprised. I'll be guessing that you gave the 'lecture' to the wrong driver and are now having the camera surgially removed

 

[Cab]

Your glowering guy is going to be your undoing eventually, when he decides being threatened with public humiliation, even if he did nothing wrong, or made a mistake, when he was forcibly stopped and lectured even with plenty of room

(remainder cut unread)

Read the damn thread.

 

[Cab]

Let's put it another way if, at some point in the future, I see one of your videos portraying a very dark tunnel with lots of background screaming, I won't be surprised. I'll be guessing that you gave the 'lecture' to the wrong driver and are now having the camera surgially removed

We'll see. The only time I've been physically assaulted while on my bike was when I didn't have a camera; guy got out of a van, with witnesses, and pushed me off the road. I rekon I could have stopped him had I had a camera back then to point at.

 

[mr_hippo]

Points already dealt with, read the damn thread, and stop being insulting.

I have read the thread. If you acted civilised in the first place then the incident would never have happened. How did I insult you?
Is parrot food part of you diet? "Read the damn thread, read the damn thread, read the damn thread, read the damn thread....."
You were in the wrong, live with it and learn from your mistake.

 

[col]

We'll see. The only time I've been physically assaulted while on my bike was when I didn't have a camera; guy got out of a van, with witnesses, and pushed me off the road. I rekon I could have stopped him had I had a camera back then to point at.

Ah so here is the point, you really feel safer from people who might react badly to you because of your mannerism to them. Some sort of star trek shield perhaps?

Some dont think twice about smashing news cameras when they feel threatened with them, what makes you think a pendantic cyclist pointing at a cctv will be any different?

 

[adunn01]

So, you haven't read the thread then (even my response to your post where I explained that the bus and the van were static).?

I read your post about the static van and bus, and then watched the video again a few times. The truck comes into view at the start of the clip and is just passing a bollard at the corner, then it reappears and the rear of the truck hasn't yet come in line with the white van going in the opposite direction, then as you pass the truck's about to come fully in line with the bus. If it is static as you claim it is far from from parked and may have slowed virtually to a complete stop almost exactly as you pass. It's disengenious of you to claim it static as if you're moving between two parked/stopped vehicles. The truck is in the process of passing the bus, albeit maybe in a slow fashion due to the lack of space between the two vehicles. For someone so concerned with his own safety, it seems like a strange decision for you to pass in such circumstances.

I've explained what happens at that location if you don't do as I did; do you dispute that claim? Have you ridden there? Once? Twice? Frequently? Never?

You've explained. But I don't believe you. And the cyclist 5 yards in front of you shows what appears to happen. Everyone safely gets through the gap.