Nuxx:Wd2hl.19166$875.4462@newsfe21.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe21.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Dangerous driving complaint and response. Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:09:15 +0000 References: <3a30696f-4bca-46fb-87d4-a4c5dac7867a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 121 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe21.ams2 1233432566 82.21.204.127 (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:09:26 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:09:26 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 6009 X-Original-Bytes: 5966 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684458

Phil W Lee wrote: > "AndyC"  considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009 > 07:38:26 -0000 the perfect time to write: > >> "spindrift"  wrote in message >> news:3a30696f-4bca-46fb-87d4-a4c5dac7867a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com... >>> This, not me by the way: >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ >>> >>> prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities. >>> >>> This was their response: >>> >>> complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266 >>> >>> I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions >>> reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised. >>> >>> We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your >>> letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the >>> process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the >>> space that he would normally leave for cyclists. >>> >>> He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of >>> his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then >>> approached him, shouting and swearing. >>> >>> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as >>> his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the >>> driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any >>> upset caused. >>> >>> >>> This concludes our investigation. >> Having watched the video a few times over I observe the following. >> >> [1] At the point which Mr Angry Cyclist was overtaken, the road was wide >> enough to be overtaken. > > Only by breaking the law.

Wrong yet again, Lee. The HC *isn't* the law. D'oh... > >>                       If he *really* did not want to be overtaken at that >> point then perhaps he should have been further away from the kerb. > > Any further, and the moronic driver would have probably been > UNDERtaking him.

You're right, for once. The retarded cyclist is waaaaaaay too far out from the kerb.

>>                                                                    That will >> block them overtaking. If however he wanted to be courteous he might have >> moved a little closer to the kerb (there were no parked cars). And then >> moved out before reaching the pinch-point. >> > By which time the car would have been alongside. > >> [2] Slapping a car as it overtakes is unwise. >> > Yes, kicking it would be far better, in the absence of a D lock.

LOL you go right ahead old son. I'll give you about five go's at that before you come across someone who fights your aggression with some aggression of his own, and inserts your D lock into your cranium. Make sure you're wearing one of these cameras, so we can all take the piss out of you afterwards :)

> But having to push off the side of the car that's just driven into the > side of you is neither. > >> [3] Shouting abuse at the driver probably does more harm than good. >> > I didn't hear any abuse from the cyclist. Only perfectly justified > outrage. > Everyone else did. So, wrong again Lee (wow, you're getting an enviable record of incorrect answers so far!)

>> While I can understand the frustrations of this cyclist (and cyclists in >> general) I don't actually think that his method of educating motorists >> actually does any good. > > And what method do you use? > His message has reached thousands.

Including the police, who should now have the copies from the cab company. Wonder how long before he gets a 'talk', presuming he hasn't had already

> >>                       All it does is make him appear aggressive, bitter, >> twisted and perhaps ought not be on the road at all. > > Unlike reckless lunatics who can't read the highway code?

Or lunatics on cycles who break the law like this muppet did?

>> Standards of driving are generally pretty poor. Cyclists are generally not >> respected as they should be. The combination of the two means that cyclists >> need to ride defensively. > > Cycling defensively, the Neville Chamblain method! > When threatened by a lunatic, give him what he wants.

Oh, give it time. He'll be under someones wheels soon enough, with his attitude. > >>                         Blocking overtaking traffic when it is not >> necessary, slapping cars and hurling abuse is asking for trouble. > > And driving into the side of a cyclist is what, precisely? >> Shoot me down! but I am sure I am not the only cyclist who thinks this. >> > Yes, and by crawling along gutters in the door zone, you only serve to > encourage the lunatics who try to insist we belong there.

You dont belong there, Lee. You belong in a cell. Preferably with padded walls...