On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote:
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
Â*woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror
Â*from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it
shut", for a start?

Do you approve of that?

"It was reported..."

Unless we all just happened to be there at the time and were all looking
in the same direction, what more could you hope for, other than a report?

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.

You can always ask her.

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.

There was no report of a collision. You fabricated it.

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

As reported, of course.

What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have?

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

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

It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision.

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?

So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told
that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it.

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.

What are you talking about? 1

(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

What are you talking about? 2

Again, so what?

It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread.

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.

From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially
in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this
thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported
here on usenet as well.

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.

Sounding a horn?

Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way
street?

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

The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing.

Obeying the rules of the road is quite another.