Was this bus driver bad?

[Cab]

Cab, I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.

Go actually read what he's written, the text that I'm responding to.

 

[tdr1nka]

BINGO!

You have, like TOTALLY, assumed that I haven't read the postings, I've read them and I have seen you disect every every to the level of sub atomic particals.

Cab, I did, and I have read the texts you are responding to and I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.

T x

 

[Cab]

BINGO!

You have, like TOTALLY, assumed that I haven't read the postings, I've read them and I have seen you disect every every to the level of sub atomic particals.

Yet you choose to answer in a way quite unrelated to whats being discussed.

Cab, I did, and I have read the texts you are responding to and I again have to point out that philibuster of such nagging and Titanic proportions based on what is only twisted assumption alone, gets right on peoples tits.

T x

For a start, look up the word 'filibuster'. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Furthermore, if you're playing no part in anything being discussed, why are you even commenting?

 

[tdr1nka]

"A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place."

EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT!
You assume I'm am not as literate as I think I am?
Again another grand assumption from Cab, so I shall assume that you're actually only pulling me up on my spelling.

You Sir are fatuous poltroon!


T x

 

[col]

Mhhh hm. I asked you a question, you didn't answer. I didn't imply that you do things a certain way, I said that if you overtake as you are happy to be overtaken then your're doing it wrong.

Remember, you said:


Do you pass cyclists that close? If you do, you are overtaking too close. You've said there thats a 'decent gap'; do you pass cyclists that close, yes or no?



Despite considerable provocation I have not insulted you.



Tiresome.

You are happy to be overtaken with a wee bit over three feet of room. Do you thus overtake cyclists that closely, yes or no?



I have told you that your judgement is poor based on your cycling position. I have asked how close you pass cyclists. Answer.



That doesn't even make sense as a set of statements; it doesn't follow from what you've been asked in any way, and in itself its pretty much meaningless.



You've said that before.

Do you pass as closely as you (erroenously) feel safe being overtaken, i.e. about three and a bit feet? Do you overtake without crossing on to the other lane much of the time (you have previously claimed that you do; thats too close)?



My qualification is that I'm right, nothing more. Don't need any more, truth be told; if you're overtaking as closely as you claim to be happy being overtaken then you could have a Ph.D. in overtaking and still be wrong.

(again, further ranting cut).

You claim to overtake safely. Bottom line; how close is that?

Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches,even though,that is what you seem to require.
Your qualifications are because your right?,mmm custer thought he was right too.
And that increases my thought, that i was right about you,you are definitely going to need a family pack of toilet rolls.

 

[Cab]

Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.

That you have yet to be hit by someone passing closer than that does not mean that it is a safe distance to pass someone. You can, thankfully, go a lifetime without being hit, but make no mistake close overtaking, and behaviour that encourages close overtaking, increases your risk on the roads.

It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches,even though,that is what you seem to require.

So, lets get this straight. You believe it is okay for motorists to overtake even closer than three feet or so. You don't actually know how closely to overtake cyclists, but you definitely overtake safely...

Doesn't add up. You've incorrectly defined a safe distance for overtaking, you've said you usually overtake without going on to the other side of the road, and you're in charge of a bus.

You really, really should reassess what you think a safe overtaking distance is, because if as it appears you're passing as close as you're happy to be overtaken, then you're increasing the risk to others on the road. Simply put, its bad motoring.

Your qualifications are because your right?,mmm custer thought he was right too.

Like I've said, none of that comes in to it. You can claim whatever qualifications you like, passing that close is not acceptable.

Don't take my word for it. Have a look at this handy illustration in the highway code:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

And that increases my thought, that i was right about you,you are definitely going to need a family pack of toilet rolls.

Okay, after pages of abuse from you, now I'll start surmising that the reason you've been so evasive is because you, like far too many road users, do not believe that you shoudl have to obey the rules of the road and give cyclists as much room as you're requested to do in the highway code. You think that overtaking more closely than that is safe. I'm afraid you are quite simply wrong.

Note, it has taken pages of mindless abuse from you, in response to polite questions, before I've put that point to you. As the trickle feed of admissions of bad roadcraft has continued from you though, I think its safe to say that now.

 

[col]

That you have yet to be hit by someone passing closer than that does not mean that it is a safe distance to pass someone. You can, thankfully, go a lifetime without being hit, but make no mistake close overtaking, and behaviour that encourages close overtaking, increases your risk on the roads.



So, lets get this straight. You believe it is okay for motorists to overtake even closer than three feet or so. You don't actually know how closely to overtake cyclists, but you definitely overtake safely...

Doesn't add up. You've incorrectly defined a safe distance for overtaking, you've said you usually overtake without going on to the other side of the road, and you're in charge of a bus.

You really, really should reassess what you think a safe overtaking distance is, because if as it appears you're passing as close as you're happy to be overtaken, then you're increasing the risk to others on the road. Simply put, its bad motoring.



Like I've said, none of that comes in to it. You can claim whatever qualifications you like, passing that close is not acceptable.

Don't take my word for it. Have a look at this handy illustration in the highway code:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314




Okay, after pages of abuse from you, now I'll start surmising that the reason you've been so evasive is because you, like far too many road users, do not believe that you shoudl have to obey the rules of the road and give cyclists as much room as you're requested to do in the highway code. You think that overtaking more closely than that is safe. I'm afraid you are quite simply wrong.

Note, it has taken pages of mindless abuse from you, in response to polite questions, before I've put that point to you. As the trickle feed of admissions of bad roadcraft has continued from you though, I think its safe to say that now.

Mmm i dont know where you got it from,that i think its ok for drivers to pass closer than three feet,?please show me how you came to this assumption?

Also ,what makes you think i dont know how close to overtake?please show again.


I said i sometimes dont go on the other side of the road,not usually,your at it again arnt you?

Again,how does it appear i overtake,as i have been overtaken? please show again

Your right,passing as close as you are assuming,is bad and dangerous.

Also,where do you get the information,that i dont abide by the rules of the road?please confirm with proof.

Again cab,show me where the trickle feed of bad roadmanship is?please do.

Im actually looking forward to your response this time.

 

[Cab]

Mmm i dont know where you got it from,that i think its ok for drivers to pass closer than three feet,?please show me how you came to this assumption?

Its like you're completely unaware of what you're saying. You initially referred to three and a half feet as a distance you're happy to be overtaken by. You then said:

Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.

So, you're always overtaken by closer to three feet... Don't you actually read as you type?

Also ,what makes you think i dont know how close to overtake?please show again.

You also don't read what I'm writing. You said:

Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.It wouldnt be safe,if i tried to measure it as i passed,so i cant give you feet and inches

And I commented on the fact that you don't know how far you pass cycles by. Or, in other words, your definition of 'safe' being incorrect (less than three and a half feet now!) all we have to go on is that you claim to pass safely, but thats really, really far too close. I backed that up with reference to the highway code.

I said i sometimes dont go on the other side of the road,not usually,your at it again arnt you?

What you actually said was:

If im passing a cyclist,ill always give as much room as i can,sometimes over the other side of the road,sometimes not

Worse than that:

going onto the other side of the road sometimes,and sometimes i cant

Or, in other words, you sometimes pass a cyclist without using the other side of the road, which is almost invariably too close. I've then given you at least four opportunities to clarify that, and you have failed to do so, instead choosing to reassert the claim that close overtaking (three and a bit feet or so) is okay.

So, clarify. When you overtake cyclists without going on to the other side of the road, how much space do you leave? Do you pass as closely as you are willing to be passed, yes or no? If you cannot overtake without leaving a good gap, say, five feet or so (see illustration as shown in the highway code), do you wait until you can or do you pass more closely than that? The second quote from you above implies that you'll pass more closely than you ideally would if you can't pass on to the other side of the road. Is that true?

Again,how does it appear i overtake,as i have been overtaken? please show again

Still unaware of what you've actually said?

I can't spell it out any more simply for you. You've stated that three feet and a bit is safe. You say you overtake 'safely'. Do you overtake three and a bti feet from a bike, yes or no?

Do you overtake bikes without going on to the other side of the road? Unless there is room within your lane to pass a bike and give the same amount of room as you ideally should, then the correct approach is not to overtake. You've said that if you can't go into the other lane you still overtake; please explain how you're doing that without going too close to the cyclist.

Your right,passing as close as you are assuming,is bad and dangerous.

So why are you arguing that closer overtaking is safe? Why are you now contradicting yourself?

Also,where do you get the information,that i dont abide by the rules of the road?please confirm with proof.

Again cab,show me where the trickle feed of bad roadmanship is?please do.

Im actually looking forward to your response this time.

Its all there laid out for you; unless you're going to now contradict multiple statements of your own its clear as day.

Are you now going to reassess how close you pass cycles, yes or no?

 

[Cab]

"A filibuster, or "talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place."

EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT!
You assume I'm am not as literate as I think I am?

You mean, you know what filibuster means and you still used it? I apologies for implying a lack of literacy. Perhaps you do know what it means, you're just using it in an entirely silly context.

Again another grand assumption from Cab, so I shall assume that you're actually only pulling me up on my spelling.

You Sir are fatuous poltroon!


T x

Nope, not just on your spelling, pulling you up on such entirely irrelevent posts.

 

[yenrod]

There was a bus driver pulling away from a bus stop that has a short bus and cycle lane. As the bus was pulling away from the stop a cyclist was about to try and overtake the bus, they had just got level with the rear of it. The cyclist shouted "Oi thanks mate" as the bus continued to move. So the bus driver opened the cab window and stuck twos up at the cyclist before accelerating away. Do you think this was bad of the bus driver?

EASY, get the reg - ring company up = job solved !

 

[col]

Its like you're completely unaware of what you're saying. You initially referred to three and a half feet as a distance you're happy to be overtaken by. You then said:



So, you're always overtaken by closer to three feet... Don't you actually read as you type?



You also don't read what I'm writing. You said:


And I commented on the fact that you don't know how far you pass cycles by. Or, in other words, your definition of 'safe' being incorrect (less than three and a half feet now!) all we have to go on is that you claim to pass safely, but thats really, really far too close. I backed that up with reference to the highway code.



What you actually said was:


Worse than that:


Or, in other words, you sometimes pass a cyclist without using the other side of the road, which is almost invariably too close. I've then given you at least four opportunities to clarify that, and you have failed to do so, instead choosing to reassert the claim that close overtaking (three and a bit feet or so) is okay.

So, clarify. When you overtake cyclists without going on to the other side of the road, how much space do you leave? Do you pass as closely as you are willing to be passed, yes or no? If you cannot overtake without leaving a good gap, say, five feet or so (see illustration as shown in the highway code), do you wait until you can or do you pass more closely than that? The second quote from you above implies that you'll pass more closely than you ideally would if you can't pass on to the other side of the road. Is that true?



Still unaware of what you've actually said?

I can't spell it out any more simply for you. You've stated that three feet and a bit is safe. You say you overtake 'safely'. Do you overtake three and a bti feet from a bike, yes or no?

Do you overtake bikes without going on to the other side of the road? Unless there is room within your lane to pass a bike and give the same amount of room as you ideally should, then the correct approach is not to overtake. You've said that if you can't go into the other lane you still overtake; please explain how you're doing that without going too close to the cyclist.



So why are you arguing that closer overtaking is safe? Why are you now contradicting yourself?



Its all there laid out for you; unless you're going to now contradict multiple statements of your own its clear as day.

Are you now going to reassess how close you pass cycles, yes or no?

No,i said it hasnt scared me to be overtaken that close.

I also said that three and a half feet is a fair gap.with a question mark.

Iv never said, i was always overtaken at closer to three feet.

How do you know what i pass, as a safe pass space?your assuming again,when did i say that it was safe to pass at less than three and a half feet?

Iv never said it s ok to pass at three and a half feet.Iv never said im happy about it,i said it hasnt scared me.

Yes i have sometimes passed a cyclist,with out going on the other side of the road,but only when its safe to do so,(for your benefit)when there is enough space so as to have at least half a road width between us,which iv mentioned before,but you must have missed that.

I think i said earlier that i will always pass with more space,than what iv had as iv been passed.Also read above,if you want to ask again about space.

If i cant pass on the other side of the road,i will wait until i can,or there is enough spce to do it without going to the other side,again see above for space.

Again,no i dont overtake with only three and a bit feet between us.

Iv never argued that closer overtaking is safe,you just assume it.

And no,im not going to reassess how i pass cyclists.

I hope you do some more assuming and dissecting,iv got nothing else to do tonight,but please do read my posts before answering,it seem you are not.

 

[vernon]

Getting back to the original post.

Yes the bus driver with the identity and memory problems - was it a bus driver or was it her as the bus driver?, was the window open or wasn't it? was in the wrong.

 

[Jaded]

About three and a half feet is a decent gap,im in agreement with you.I think anything near seven feet is not practical,in most situations,due to raod widths and other things.

You are a midget and I claim my £5

The reason for the requirement for drivers to give as least as much room as they would a car when overtaking a bicycle is to allow the bike to wobble, or worse still, fall off. I'm over 6' and I'd like 6' of space to fall off into.

 

[Cab]

No,i said it hasnt scared me to be overtaken that close.

I also said that three and a half feet is a fair gap.with a question mark.

You constantly contradict yourself.

YOU said:

About three and a half feet is a decent gap

So... You've asserted that three and a half feet is a decent gap. Then you're insisting now that it isn't. Oh, no, it is, you're happy to be overtaken that close...

Make up your mind. Is three and a half feet a safe gap to be overtaken, yes or no?

Iv never said, i was always overtaken at closer to three feet.

Hang on, you said:

Its always more than i am passed by,and safely.

So, you're always overtaken between 3'4" and 3'6"? You're being ridiculous now. In which of your statements have you told an untruth, that you're always overtaken by less than three and a half feet or that you're never overtaken by closer to three feet? Or is the ridiculous implication that theres a three inch overtaking window (the only way both statements can be true!) to be believed?

How do you know what i pass, as a safe pass space?your assuming again,when did i say that it was safe to pass at less than three and a half feet?

You have defined three and a half feet as safe. You've said that you pass at a safe distance. Excuse me for taking you at your word.

Iv never said it s ok to pass at three and a half feet.Iv never said im happy about it,i said it hasnt scared me.

Yes, you've said precisely that. You said:

About three and a half feet is a decent gap

Are you retracting that statement now?

Yes i have sometimes passed a cyclist,with out going on the other side of the road,but only when its safe to do so,(for your benefit)when there is enough space so as to have at least half a road width between us,which iv mentioned before,but you must have missed that.

I think i said earlier that i will always pass with more space,than what iv had as iv been passed.Also read above,if you want to ask again about space.

If i cant pass on the other side of the road,i will wait until i can,or there is enough spce to do it without going to the other side,again see above for space.

Define how far you pass the cyclist. You've said three and a half feet is a decent gap, you've said also that it isn't. You've been given evidence from the highway code about how far you should be passing; do you pass at, say, 6' or so?

Again,no i dont overtake with only three and a bit feet between us.

Iv never argued that closer overtaking is safe,you just assume it.

If you repeat that statement in another post then, demosntrably, you're lying. You've said (I quote this now for the third time in this posting):

About three and a half feet is a decent gap

And no,im not going to reassess how i pass cyclists.

I hope you do some more assuming and dissecting,iv got nothing else to do tonight,but please do read my posts before answering,it seem you are not.

The evidence we have is the following:
(1) Your definition of a safe overtaking distance is erroneous.
(2) You are hesitant to say how closely you'll pass cyclists, and you have stated that the appropriate distance as advised by the highway code is not practical so you do overtake more closely than that (see text of your posting as quoted by Jaded).
(3) You falsely believe that it is often safe to pass cyclists without straying into another lane, whereas that is very, very rarely the case.
(4) You've contradicted yourself probably more than a dozen times now
(5) Despite information on how closely it is safe to allow yourself to be overtaken, or to overtake yourself, you choose to pretend ignorance on safe overtaking.

 

[BentMikey]

I reckon the only thing Cab has proved beyond all doubt is the quality of his social skills on the internet.