Nuxx:K Zgl.19144$875.15566@newsfe21.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder1.news.weretis.net!newsfeeder.dynfx.net!weretis.net!feeder.news-service.com!69.16.177.246.MISMATCH!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.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 15:20:00 +0000 References: <3a30696f-4bca-46fb-87d4-a4c5dac7867a@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com> 	<6uis19Ff35gnU1@mid.individual.net> <34a4c060-bad6-478e-9a7f-c719f323eb33@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 	 	<6uj19lFfnvl5U1@mid.individual.net> <088cd0f2-72ef-4679-8955-4d8cee962cb8@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 	 <3416dc25-8a50-4077-b233-f110b6f20de9@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> 	 <96afac66-fff0-4f4f-9207-d2a6193e0626@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com> 	  Lines: 55 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 1233415210 82.21.204.127 (Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:20:10 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:20:10 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4198 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684404

spindrift wrote: > The cops have acted on previous video evidence of this kind.

I think shoving this tape under plods nose is FAR more likely to result in a chat to the cyclist about criminal damage and public order offences, dont you?

> If the > driver had held his hands up and said yes, it was a needless, reckless > overtake then that probably would have been the end of it.

When confronted by a red-faced yob spitting abuse at him? I think he deserves a medal for taking the massively sensible step of 'walking away' in the face of such abuse, and not getting out to remonstrate with the abusive cyclist.

> The letter > shows that the licencing authority are as ignorant of the HC as the > driver, ignorant of the case law that designates a safe passing > distance for cyclists and ignorant of what constitutes safe driving, > which, for a professional driver, is inexcusable. > If you break the HC, intentionally or otherwise, and you are observed by the police who then pull you over, do you think you should be subject to spitting abuse?

> The driver had a chance to say sorry for what he did, the fact he > denies that passing a cyclist close enough for the cyclist to touch > the car is dangerous shows that he ought not be on the roads.

So a driver who calms a potentially dangerous confrontation by moving away from it is someone who oughtn't to be on the road, but the nutter cyclist who assaults the vehicle with his fist and the occupants with abuse is actually a saint in shining armour? What a bizarre world you inhabit.

> There is > no way during a safe overtake that a cyclist would be able to reach > out and touch the car,

I dispute that - on occasions it may well be. If I see peds on the pavement of a DC I use at night, I'll pull out into the outer lane when passing them at 60ish. On the other hand, at slow speed in queuing traffic I have no problem in passing cyclists within a couple of feet. Put it this way, using their famous 'filtering' technique, a cyclist is happy to pass ME within touching distance, how is it different the other way round?

> the driver was acting as if the cyclist wasn't > there and to prevent being side swiped the cyclist took action to > bring to the attention of an idiot driver the fact that he was there > and in danger. > The only thing he was in danger of was losing his fragile temper, and he patently did.