"But I was indicating!"

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Marc wrote:

judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:


What have red lights to do with it?

Whether the car driver was in the right or in the wrong (which isn't worth
debating), the correct procedure when being overtaken - according to the
HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back left in front of
you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that is necessary. There's
nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at (female) drivers who
overtake instead of slowing down.


look at rule 182
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070332


A better way of putting that is that two wrongs don't make a right.

On 23 Aug, 15:18, judith wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:33:25 +0100, (Roger

Merriman) wrote:

snip



i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.

roger

She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed - and two seconds later he
sounds his horn.
A further two seconds later she actually turns.

I think he was looking for the confrontation.


I think that she was not looking at all clearly. And why couldn't she
just have stayed behind the cyclist and awaited her turn instead of
arrogantly trying to force her way through? The lack of politeness of
motorists. Get out of my way or I'll hurt you, and it will be your
fault.

On 23 Aug, 17:17, still a novice wrote:
aquachimp wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:42 pm, Squashme wrote:
On 23 Aug, 12:05, aquachimp
wrote:

On Aug 23, 4:42 am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
JNugent considered Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:48:49 +0100 the
perfect time to write:
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:
Correct.
*Not normal*.
You say that like it's automatically a bad thing.
Do you read the Sun? Play the Lottery?
Neither thing (as I suspect you well know).
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, abnormal (outside the
established norms of behaviour) to read a proper newspaper or no paper
at all - rather than The Sun or The Daily Mirror. Neither is it anything
other than completely normal to refrain from wasting money on a lottery
with hopeless odds which relies on hype rather than a reasonable
expectation of return.
But going round recording the daily business of others in public places
on videotape with a view to picking fights is *very* abnormal.
So much so that just about every high street shop does it, and the
only thing they risk losing is money.
Ensuring you have evidence for the occasions when idiots threaten your
life is far from picking fights - it's avoiding them.
People need reminding that they could be confronted with the evidence
of their negligence.
Apart from which, the skills of motorist in question were such that in
order to leave the roadway she needed to slow down to a speed that was
even slower, by quite a margin, to that of the cyclist she had just
overtaken.
Dumb or what!
I've just been overtaken and immediately turned left across this
morning (23rd). It's just laughable. Killing joke, sometimes, of
course. And, probably, once dead, I could be accused of having been
overtaking on the inside.

Dead to save some ass a second.

Maybe you'd like to run that lot past me again. I can't make head nor
tail out of it. Sorry.

Dont worry, he often speaks complete gibberish...

And you would know because you have just arrived?

On 23 Aug, 15:08, aquachimp
wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:42 pm, Squashme wrote:



On 23 Aug, 12:05, aquachimp
wrote:

On Aug 23, 4:42 am, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:

JNugent considered Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:48:49 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

Correct.
*Not normal*.

You say that like it's automatically a bad thing.

Do you read the Sun? Play the Lottery?

Neither thing (as I suspect you well know).

It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, abnormal (outside the
established norms of behaviour) to read a proper newspaper or no paper
at all - rather than The Sun or The Daily Mirror. Neither is it anything
other than completely normal to refrain from wasting money on a lottery
with hopeless odds which relies on hype rather than a reasonable
expectation of return.

But going round recording the daily business of others in public places
on videotape with a view to picking fights is *very* abnormal.

So much so that just about every high street shop does it, and the
only thing they risk losing is money.

Ensuring you have evidence for the occasions when idiots threaten your
life is far from picking fights - it's avoiding them.
People need reminding that they could be confronted with the evidence
of their negligence.

Apart from which, the skills of motorist in question were such that in
order to leave the roadway she needed to slow down to a speed that was
even slower, by quite a margin, to that of the cyclist she had just
overtaken.
Dumb or what!

I've just been overtaken and immediately turned left across this
morning (23rd). It's just laughable. Killing joke, sometimes, of
course. And, probably, once dead, I could be accused of having been
overtaking on the inside.

Dead to save some ass a second.

Maybe you'd like to run that lot past me again. I can't make head nor
tail out of it. Sorry.

"Stream-of-consciousness writing is usually regarded as a special form
of interior monologue and is characterized by associative (and at
times--dissociative) leaps in syntax and punctuation that can make the
prose difficult to follow, tracing a character's fragmentary thoughts
and sensory feelings."

Sorry 'bout that. I shall try to rein it in.

On 23 Aug, 16:45, JNugent wrote:
Roger Merriman wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:
... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone
...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.
maybe, but that don't exuse the lady, who at the kindest misstimed that
manover. she attempted to turn even though his wheel was only just
behind her. not a very wise choice.

I am not trying and have not tried to excuse the driver - indeed, I make
no comment on the substance of the actual incident.


No, you'd rather indulge in victim-blaming.

On 23 Aug, 16:52, JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:
snip
i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.
She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -
You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.

"Delta V"?

Whilst not excusing those that cycle through red lights it's a core
reason behind it. If you were a cyclist you would understand, if you
weren't a troll you would try to understand.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf

What have red lights to do with it?

Being you are what you are you probably won't bother looking at the
opinions of others, but it gives me a chance to let others know that the
opinions are there; you have now served your purpose for this thread and
can be ignored.

Whether the car driver was in the right or in the wrong (which isn't
worth debating), the correct procedure when being overtaken - according
to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back left in
front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that is
necessary. There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.


So it "isn't worth debating" but you go ahead and argue in favour of
the motorist. Devious.

Toby Sleigh wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:

What have red lights to do with it?
Whether the car driver was in the right or in the wrong (which isn't worth
debating), the correct procedure when being overtaken - according to the
HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back left in front of
you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that is necessary. There's
nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at (female) drivers who
overtake instead of slowing down.

look at rule 182
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_070332

I am aware of that.

I was talking about what the Code says to people who are *being*
overtaken (fait accompli). Did you not read the bit where I said I
wasn't commenting on the driver's actions?

I said (among other things):

A better way of putting that is that two wrongs don't make a right.

Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Roger Merriman wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The Real Doctor wrote:

... In this case, the cyclist simply seems to have got all upset
because a car /dared/ to overtake him. There's no question that the
driver didn't see him and he was not in danger at any point. He simply
seems to have been looking for an excuse to have a go at someone

...which may explain why he goes to the trouble of cycling around with a
video camera running - behaviour which is decidely not normal.

maybe, but that don't exuse the lady, who at the kindest misstimed that
manover. she attempted to turn even though his wheel was only just
behind her. not a very wise choice.

I am not trying and have not tried to excuse the driver - indeed, I make
no comment on the substance of the actual incident.

No, you'd rather indulge in victim-blaming.

Which bit of "I am not trying and have not tried to excuse the driver"
is too difficult for you to understand?

Perhaps it's in too-plain English. Maybe I should written it in a style
parodying James Joyce.

Squashme wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:

snip

i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.

She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -

You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.

"Delta V"?

No explanatio of that one. ;-(

Whilst not excusing those that cycle through red lights it's a core
reason behind it. If you were a cyclist you would understand, if you
weren't a troll you would try to understand.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf

What have red lights to do with it?

Being you are what you are you probably won't bother looking at the
opinions of others, but it gives me a chance to let others know that the
opinions are there; you have now served your purpose for this thread and
can be ignored.

Whether the car driver was in the right or in the wrong (which isn't
worth debating), the correct procedure when being overtaken - according
to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back left in
front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that is
necessary. There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.

So it "isn't worth debating" but you go ahead and argue in favour of
the motorist. Devious.

At tht stage, the motorist had become the victim.

I wonder whether he'd have tried to do it to a Tyke tattooed lorry
driver built like a brick outhouse?

On 23 Aug, 18:27, JNugent wrote:
Squashmewrote:
JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
judith wrote:
(Roger Merriman) wrote:
snip
i suspect it's a lot closer than you think, look how far his feet apear
to be. probably under a foot, from the rear of the car, she's only just
ahead when she trys to make the turn.
She passes him and clearly indicates to turn left.
He makes no effort to ease off his speed -
You're not a cyclist are you?
Delta V is easy in a car, just press a pedal; it's not quite so easy on
a bike.
"Delta V"?

No explanatio of that one. ;-(





Whilst not excusing those that cycle through red lights it's a core
reason behind it. If you were a cyclist you would understand, if you
weren't a troll you would try to understand.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/stop.pdf
What have red lights to do with it?
Being you are what you are you probably won't bother looking at the
opinions of others, but it gives me a chance to let others know that the
opinions are there; you have now served your purpose for this thread and
can be ignored.
Whether the car driver was in the right or in the wrong (which isn't
worth debating), the correct procedure when being overtaken - according
to the HC - is to allow the overtaking vehicle to pull back left in
front of you - even slowing down to allow it to do so if that is
necessary. There's nothing in the Code about shouting abusively at
(female) drivers who overtake instead of slowing down.
So it "isn't worth debating" but you go ahead and argue in favour of
the motorist. Devious.

At tht stage, the motorist had become the victim.

In mortal danger, no doubt.


I wonder whether he'd have tried to do it to a Tyke tattooed lorry
driver built like a brick outhouse?

I wonder whether the motorist'd have tried to do it to a Tyke tattooed
lorry
driver built like a brick outhouse?

I wonder whether you realise that you are just reinforcing the
perception of the roads as a hierarchy of bullies? I do not believe
that this is what you want them to be.