Nobody has misquoted you.
You posted a bizarre comment that suggests you are mentally unhinged.
No, you misinterpreted like a troll will always try to do, so you could get off on it, and posted some crap which shows you're a troll. Jerk away, boy.
Whats puzzling me is why someone was doing about 35 in a 30 zone.
If the car was doing 30 and the cyclist doing 33/34 then just let the cyclist go. That way he gets out of your area and you continue to drive within the legal limit. Better to have an idiot in front than behind, every time.
People drive at about 35 all the time
. The situation was nothing like you describe. You're the 4th person making things up!
Fatheadfred, you may have been alarmed, that doesn't mean it was alarming, it means you f'd up.
Sorry to disappoint, but I never mentioned standing on the brakes, brake testing him, or racing the cyclist, I didn't say the cyclist was simply going too fast. I did nothing violently, or extreme, or to try to kill him or hurt him.
I didn't imply anywhere it was funny to hurt cyclists, or that I hate cyclists. Nor have I backtracked.
Someone hasn't ridden a bike obviously, at 25-35mph. Easy peasy on a decent bike, but they had to imply I got it wrong. Troll.
That's at least half a dozen things trolls have made up. Pathetic.
If you don't think I've been misquoted, learn to read.
I tried to state it in the first place in a clear way to point out that I did it to be difficult on purpose, because he was always a pain, like I said. So again who's the nob here? You who got it wrong, on purpose.
He should have been able to brake, like he made everyone else on the commute do on a daily basis. He evidently couldn't. His mistake.
--
Say, I was doing say 30, he was in front going at a bit less, 25 or whatever over to the left a bit, and would have pulled out round the parked van, without checking behind him.
With me so far?
So when he went to pull out I was in his way, to be annoying. He'd have characteristically left it to the last car length, gone to pull out then realised he had nowhere to go.
Say he's doing 25mph. Two car lengths a second, So he has half a second to brake. At a speed delta of 5mph I'd be passing him for 3 seconds - plenty of scope for me without effort.
During all that time, he wouldn't be able to pull out because I was in the way. No accelerating and no braking required, though I think a bit of both happened; as I said, it was decades ago. I tried to state it above in a clear way to point out how it happened and that I did it on purpose.
Nothing frantic or uncommon though, which FatheadFredtheTroll and others are keen to make up.
So all I actually did was make him brake. If he had control of his bike he could have done so and come out behind me.
You must have seen it happen when cars hold another in a nearside lane behind a slow moving vehicle. Same thing but cars have better brakes. If the car in the inside lane goes slamming into the back of the truck, it's his fault. I've never seen that happen, worst is the car has to slow to the speed of the truck, though that may be from 70 to 30mph.
FHF why don't you model it in Powerpoint if you're genuine? Only takes 2 neurons and 2 minutes, + 1 to make it a movie you can post.
Of course if you only want to be a lying troll some more, f off back to the midden.
None of this matters to the point at hand. Cyclists who ride stupidly can expect to find themselves in difficulty - they need to ride defensively. It's not hard, we've all done it. I was wrong as I said - I put a little
quiet effort into being difficult. But that motive doesn't help the cyclist. People do far worse, often, and it's the cyclist who has to accept and deal with it, by trying not to provoke people, for a start.
