On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:

Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions?

What criminal actions?

How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the
woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror
from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it
shut", for a start?

Do you approve of that?

"It was reported..."

We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken
place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place.

I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front
of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider
to turn round and cause damage.

I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and
decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment,
causing the rider to crash into the side of the car.

I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't.

Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can
do no wrong?

I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong".

When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to
argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of
the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made.

I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and
being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the
other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a
one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently).

So what?

Why don't cyclists take such advice well?

I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in
single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in
safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she
eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us
down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable
conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded.

(1) a note for some whingers
(2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping
(3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver
(4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far
I mean by 'ahead'
(5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2

Again, so what?

Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities
and threats?

From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the
press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press
doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each
of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions
of events where nothing in particular happened.

It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a
bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way
(unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the
driver's perspective.

Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride
a bicycle.