Another driving moan thread ...

He's not called Justin Passing for nothing. ;)

Seriously, I suspect that although the anecdote is probably based on a similar real incident, it was well packed out with Justin Passing's imagination about what he hoped had occurred.

There's plenty of such 'imaginary incidents' impersonating actual anecdotes in these threads.
It may be something to do with the male ego.
A hollow allegation. Based on your own ego?
 
Sponsored Links
A hollow allegation.
Sure, I have no proof.
But you are either a dangerous motorist who intentionally causes cyclists to have serious (possibly life-ending) accidents and drives off without concern about the cyclist, or you're a bit of a boaster.

30mph on a cycle into a stationary object would be pretty horrific. The cyclist is the crumple zone.
 
That's a two stage overtake. Suitable for when you don't need to adjust your speed to follow the target vehicle prior to overtaking.
The bit you're missing on the 3 stage method (and it took me a while for it to click too) is that you move up to the pre-overtake position when you have clear visibility in front of the target vehicle and always outside the danger zone (directly behind), you move to the overtake when its safe for you to be on the off-side. Only from the overtake position do you assess if its safe to go. It halves your overtaking space and the guy doing a 2 stage will be on to the next car before your 3 stager has opened his taps. Its only from position 2 that you assess if the overtake is on. You aren't adding extra stages you are doing half the job before the gap has opened up.
"Their" motorbike adopts a position less than a car length behind the car. I wouldn't do that, I'd be outside the car's line, and further behind at the the "pre-overtake" point. If you adopt that position, you're asking for the car to react - in a way which might not want.
In this case the bike and car have just come round a bend, so the bike would be a couple of seconds behind. So the drawing doesn't work really.
 
Sponsored Links
Sure, I have no proof.
But you are either a dangerous motorist who intentionally causes cyclists to have serious (possibly life-ending) accidents and drives off without concern about the cyclist, or you're a bit of a boaster.

30mph on a cycle into a stationary object would be pretty horrific. The cyclist is the crumple zone.
"you are a " is a generalised allegation, based on one incident I described from decades ago?
The point I'm making is that this sort of incident will happen when a cycist annoys eveyone on a regular basis, as described.
What's boasting about that?
Cyclists need to look after themselves, allowing for someone, whom he'd provoked, being a nob. All he would have needed to do see what was going on and brake. Don't you think he has that responsibility - to look after himself?
 
"Their" motorbike adopts a position less than a car length behind the car. I wouldn't do that, I'd be outside the car's line, and further behind at the the "pre-overtake" point. If you adopt that position, you're asking for the car to react - in a way which might not want.
In this case the bike and car have just come round a bend, so the bike would be a couple of seconds behind. So the drawing doesn't work really.
This video may help you better understand. TBH even this isn't a good example.

With the 3 stager you commit later and are exposed for less time. With your alternative approach you are committing from the following position ? You also can't go until later due to the oncoming car, so you've more to do in less time and are making the go no go from further back.
 
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.

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.
Get some driving lessons and some help
 
AT 5 seconds, and 24-31 seconds, the bike has put himself in danger which depends on what the car does. That car moves left. If the car driver had thought "effin bike up my jacksy" held his line and brake tested the bike, the biker'd be in the poop.
If the bike had kept a 2 second gap, and moved out as he closed on the car, he wouldn't have had that danger. Sure he might not have been able to squeeze the overtake in. The 2 second rule isn't there to be broken when it suits YOU, it's to allow for other people.
 
Get some driving lessons and some help
I'm allowed to drive without doing that, as is everyone else on the road including those far worse than me. That is the point the cyclist - and you, need to know.
Protesting about someone else won't protect you.
 
I'm allowed to drive without doing that, as is everyone else on the road including those far worse than me. That is the point the cyclist - and you, need to know.
Protesting about someone else won't protect you.
You will end up in prison or hospital or the loony bin
 
AT 5 seconds, and 24-31 seconds, the bike has put himself in danger which depends on what the car does. That car moves left. If the car driver had thought "effin bike up my jacksy" held his line and brake tested the bike, the biker'd be in the poop.
If the bike had kept a 2 second gap, and moved out as he closed on the car, he wouldn't have had that danger. Sure he might not have been able to squeeze the overtake in. The 2 second rule isn't there to be broken when it suits YOU, it's to allow for other people.
It reasonable to expect the car to continue as before, the rider also has an escape route as he's outside the danger zone. A car driver could also pull across your path to block the overtake, when you are next to him. If you look he was close for no more than 3 seconds and was able to complete the overtake easily and safely. This would not have been possible had he committed from further back. He'd also have needed more speed.
 
Glad you find the exposure of your shortcomings to be funny.

I, like everyone else including you, do have short comings and I will admit to them. However, it seems you don't appear to recognise that you have them and continually bleat on about a cyclist getting on your nerves and you freely admit to causing him to have potentially had an accident. By your own admission you also stated you didn't know what the outcome was and didn't care.
I think you need to face up to your short-comings and realise the universe does not spin around you. Accept that what you did was wrong, you knew it was wrong, but it gave you a smug feeling of being superior to a very vulnerable member of the public. If that cyclist had ever brought charges against you for 'inconsiderate' driving, or even dangerous driving, you would not have walked out of a courthouse without some form of penalty, especially if other members of the public had witnessed it and testified against you.
 
I, like everyone else including you, do have short comings and I will admit to them. However, it seems you don't appear to recognise that you have them and continually bleat on about a cyclist getting on your nerves and you freely admit to causing him to have potentially had an accident. By your own admission you also stated you didn't know what the outcome was and didn't care.
I think you need to face up to your short-comings and realise the universe does not spin around you. Accept that what you did was wrong, you knew it was wrong, but it gave you a smug feeling of being superior to a very vulnerable member of the public. If that cyclist had ever brought charges against you for 'inconsiderate' driving, or even dangerous driving, you would not have walked out of a courthouse without some form of penalty, especially if other members of the public had witnessed it and testified against you.
There are too many of these self entitled morons on the roads and they are all expert drivers despite the fact that because of their erratic driving they cause others to have accidents
 
I, like everyone else including you, do have short comings and I will admit to them. However, it seems you don't appear to recognise that you have them and
Since I already admitted that, the rest of your self indulgent rantings are destitute.
And the mad cyclist still has to watch out for himself.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top