Near Miss of the Day 499: Driver cuts straight across cyclist at junction

On 16/11/2020 11:58, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2020 10:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2020 09:41, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2020 19:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/11/2020 17:47, JNugent wrote:

Once "Ed" saw the driver pull out (right or wrong), why
didn't he ameliorate the situation by slowing down (whisper
it: perhaps even stopping) instead of continuing to charge
towards it?

Well, we can see that the cyclist slowed down and didn't
"charge towards it".

"We" can see no such thing. Sensible road-users would...

Sensible road users take action avoid a crash. The clip shows a
cyclist avoiding a crash.

Fr all your attempts at bluster, I suspect that you would have
don the same (especially if you were driving).

Fr all your bluster, you don have a clue.

So you wouldn't have slowed or stopped and you would have ploughed
into the side of the other car.

Perhaps you don't understand the echo of your typos?

Being that you are such a pedant, don't start a paragraph with 'so'.

Sorry I misjudged you.

I was right to say you don't have a clue.

On 16/11/2020 12:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2020 11:58, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2020 10:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2020 09:41, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2020 19:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/11/2020 17:47, JNugent wrote:

Once "Ed" saw the driver pull out (right or wrong), why
didn't he ameliorate the situation by slowing down (whisper
it: perhaps even stopping) instead of continuing to charge
towards it?

Well, we can see that the cyclist slowed down and didn't
"charge towards it".

"We" can see no such thing. Sensible road-users would...

Sensible road users take action avoid a crash. The clip shows a
cyclist avoiding a crash.

Fr all your attempts at bluster, I suspect that you would have
don the same (especially if you were driving).

Fr all your bluster, you don have a clue.

So you wouldn't have slowed or stopped and you would have ploughed
into the side of the other car.

Perhaps you don't understand the echo of your typos?

Being that you are such a pedant, don't start a paragraph with 'so'.

Tell that to Will Shakespeare.

I'm willing to take lessons from him. From you... not so much.

Sorry I misjudged you.

I was right to say you don't have a clue.

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that you would have ploughed into the
side of that car even if the driver was in the wrong. But you denied my
suggestion that you would have stopped. You know your own business best.

On 16/11/2020 14:29, JNugent wrote:

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that you would have ploughed into the
side of that car even if the driver was in the wrong. But you denied my
suggestion that you would have stopped.

You always claim that you don't click on links. It appears you are not
lying on this occasion. On the other hand, we know that your brain only
ever decodes a badly distorted version of the information entering your
eyes.

You know your own business best.

Quite so.

On 16/11/2020 15:34, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/11/2020 14:29, JNugent wrote:

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that you would have ploughed into
the side of that car even if the driver was in the wrong. But you
denied my suggestion that you would have stopped.

You always claim that you don't click on links. It appears you are not
lying on this occasion. On the other hand, we know that your brain only
ever decodes a badly distorted version of the information entering your
eyes.

You know your own business best.

Quite so.

The videos on road.cc are sometimes quite interesting. Not as
interesting as the mangled grammar and logic of most of its
contributors, naturally, but still worth a look if only to marvel at the
trivial errors that get some people so worked up, alleging "near
collisions" when all they had to do was stop.

On 16/11/2020 15:43, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2020 15:34, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/11/2020 14:29, JNugent wrote:

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that you would have ploughed into
the side of that car even if the driver was in the wrong. But you
denied my suggestion that you would have stopped.

You always claim that you don't click on links. It appears you are not
lying on this occasion. On the other hand, we know that your brain
only ever decodes a badly distorted version of the information
entering your eyes.

You know your own business best.

Quite so.

The videos on road.cc are sometimes quite interesting. Not as
interesting as the mangled grammar and logic of most of its
contributors, naturally, but still worth a look if only to marvel at the
trivial errors that get some people so worked up, alleging "near
collisions" when all they had to do was stop.

Yes, it's amusing that you think that if something suddenly blocks the
way ahead "stopping" doesn't make the event a near collision.

On 17/11/2020 15:25, TMS320 wrote:

On 16/11/2020 15:43, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2020 15:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2020 14:29, JNugent wrote:

I certainly wouldn't have guessed that you would have ploughed into
the side of that car even if the driver was in the wrong. But you
denied my suggestion that you would have stopped.

You always claim that you don't click on links. It appears you are
not lying on this occasion. On the other hand, we know that your
brain only ever decodes a badly distorted version of the information
entering your eyes.
You know your own business best.
Quite so.

The videos on road.cc are sometimes quite interesting. Not as
interesting as the mangled grammar and logic of most of its
contributors, naturally, but still worth a look if only to marvel at
the trivial errors that get some people so worked up, alleging "near
collisions" when all they had to do was stop.

Yes, it's amusing that you think that if something suddenly blocks the
way ahead "stopping" doesn't make the event a near collision.

No-one - not even a cyclist - is justified in ploughing on and colliding
with a vehicle - or a human - who has moved into their path,
irrespective of whether that third party is in the wrong.

If the brakes of one's vehicle work (it's always a bit of a
perhaps-unjustfied assumption that they're even fitted in the case of
bicycles of course) and if there's room to stop, that's what you have to
do. And it's always the safest thing to do.

But you won't accept that because (some way above and now snipped by
you), you contradicted my reasonable belief that you would stop in such
circumstances. What makes you behave like that?

On 17/11/2020 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2020 15:25, TMS320 wrote:

Yes, it's amusing that you think that if something suddenly blocks
the way ahead "stopping" doesn't make the event a near collision.

No-one - not even a cyclist - is justified in ploughing on and
colliding with a vehicle - or a human - who has moved into their
path, irrespective of whether that third party is in the wrong.

You haven't looked at the video and you keep flip flopping between near
collision and collision. The cyclist calmly avoided a collision.

You haven't looked at the video and you keep flip flopping between near
collision and collision. The cyclist calmly avoided a collision.

Expertly, in fact. In spite of the idiot driver.

On 17/11/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2020 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2020 15:25, TMS320 wrote:

Yes, it's amusing that you think that if something suddenly blocks
the way ahead "stopping" doesn't make the event a near collision.

No-one - not even a cyclist - is justified in ploughing on and
colliding with a vehicle - or a human - who has moved into their
path, irrespective of whether that third party is in the wrong.

You haven't looked at the video and you keep flip flopping between near
collision and collision. The cyclist calmly avoided a collision.

He made the situation less safe than it could have been by ploughing on
in an obvious fit of pique. He could have stayed further away from the
other vehicle (and yes, the actions of the driver *were* annoying) by
slowing or better still, stopping.

I would have done so. So, I suggest, would most people. You insist,
though, that you would not have sought to minimise the danger by slowing
or stopping. I'm still not sure whether to believe you on that last bit;
it could be that you are just posturing.

On Wednesday, 18 November 2020 at 11:40:16 UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/11/2020 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 17/11/2020 15:25, TMS320 wrote:

Yes, it's amusing that you think that if something suddenly blocks
the way ahead "stopping" doesn't make the event a near collision.

No-one - not even a cyclist - is justified in ploughing on and
colliding with a vehicle - or a human - who has moved into their
path, irrespective of whether that third party is in the wrong.

You haven't looked at the video and you keep flip flopping between near
collision and collision. The cyclist calmly avoided a collision.
He made the situation less safe than it could have been by ploughing on
in an obvious fit of pique. He could have stayed further away from the
other vehicle (and yes, the actions of the driver *were* annoying) by
slowing or better still, stopping.

I would have done so. So, I suggest, would most people. You insist,
though, that you would not have sought to minimise the danger by slowing
or stopping. I'm still not sure whether to believe you on that last bit;
it could be that you are just posturing.

When you are in a hole stop digging.
The 'untrained' non 'road tax' paying cyclist handled the situation perfectly.
I would class this as an everyday occurrence not a near miss, not that it excuses the dangerous driving from the 'highly trained' subsidised road user.