magnatom said:
No it's not. It is a reaction to the form of your posts. They are way too long and you nit pick at the smallest of details (was a window fully open or partially open, who cares!!).
Its when a story starts changing like that you can tell that the teller is holding back. I didn't care whether the window was open or not, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the fact that Nethalus has changed her story here means that we've still not heard the real truth.
My summary would be this, nethalus may have pulled out and endangered the cyclist and got annoyed just because thats what some drivers do. Equally the cyclist may have done something stupid, and caused nethalus a fright which she reacted to. Yes wrong reaction but hardly a terrible crime.
Thus far I agree enturely. I'd also add that because there was a perfectly valid, reasonable, legal route by which the cyclist could have been there the fact that the cyclist may have done something stupid is irrelevent; if a cyclist can be there then you have to look out. Nethalis missed the cyclist, pulled out, endangered the cyclist, yet she doesn't accept that in this manoevre she did anything wrong. She does accept that her subsequent response was wrong but, frankly, compared to the initial mistake thats peanuts.
I don't care if people make mistakes on the road; heck, I've made my fair share, admitted them here and been lambasted/praised in fairly equal measure for that. What matters is that you accept your error and learn from it, and Nethalus has resoundingly failed to do so.
The only source of information we have is nethalus herself. She is the only available witness. Witnesses are notoriously poor at remembering information correctly, so there is significant uncertainty in what happened. So what point is there pouring over the detail when there are probably biased inaccuracies anyway (nethalus this is a general statement about wittinesses and not aimed specifically at you)
Therefore we should listen to what she says, chat amicably about what may or may not have happened, suggest what she could do in the future and thank her for bothering to spend the time chatting about it.
Yet I come back to the same position from that; there isn't, from the description put forward by Nethalus, any way of looking at this other than a bus pulling out into road space that the bike was occupying/entering. Thats the error, thats the dangerous part, and thats the part that Nethalus has been utterly recalitrant on. She's in the wrong there, thats the mistake, and she doesn't accept that.
What we should not do is witch hunt, nit pick, make assumptions, and question the motives of someone who is obviously trying to improve her driving.
She isn't doing that though. She is seeking absolution for having endangered a cyclist without accepting that she has even done so. All I would have required to say 'fair play' was for her to say 'I made a mistake in pulling out, I shouldn't have done so, I'll look out in future'. Yet when challenged on that point... nothing.
Nethalus has changed her opinion of cyclists over the last few months and it would appear is considering taking up cycling. Is that not a result? It is likely if she does this that she will improve her understanding of cyclist issue and will probably become a better driver for it.
Taking all of this in mind, what purpose does your continued arguing with nethalus now serve?
The basic, most important issue is acceptance of error; if we don't stand up against people not accepting error where they've endangered cyclists then, frankly, why are we discussing the topic at all?
