Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

Harry_Flashman

Whether you believe me or not is a huge insignificance old chap. I have enough self-awareness not to need to impress anonymous user-names on an internet message board.

I did think it was quite a coincidence but there you go - these things happen.

He wasn't trying to turn right (there is no right turning at that point). It's my belief that he was, like you, a stroppy !!!!!!!!!! who felt he had the right to as much road as he wanted.

It wasn't a dangerous manouvre as my vehicle wasn't damaged and no-one was hurt. Happy day

Altarf

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

The cyclist was trying to get himself into the middle of the road, but moved over as I made my way alongside him and moved over to the left in order to avoid oncoming traffic.

If you did that to me you would have a D lock smashing your teeth out when you stopped at the next red light.

Azari

Altarf wrote: »

If you did that to me you would have a D lock smashing your teeth out when you stopped at the next red light.

Don't drop down to his level.

Let him have his little fantasy if it makes him feel like a real man.

Altarf

Unfortunately it is not fantasy, and there are really tw@ts like him driving like that.

Harry_Flashman

Altarf wrote: »

If you did that to me you would have a D lock smashing your teeth out when you stopped at the next red light.

Why's that old chap? I merely demonstrated to the cyclist that there was plenty of room for both of us.

And you might have struggled anyway, there was over 2 miles of open road in front of me

greektony

I drive a delorean. Problem solved

Azari

Altarf wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not fantasy, and there are really tw@ts like him driving like that.

In his case it's pure fantasy.

Hypothetically - and nothing whatever to do with the case at hand - what do suppose the chances are of some blowhard mouthing off on a forum site and then happening, half an hour before hand, to have had the exact incident that would allow him to claim an experience that would in turn enable him to puff up his little chest and tell the world how he dealt with a big bad cyclist who tried to get in his way.

Yes, there are idiots who do stupid things but they aren't that common and the chances of one happening to find the exact circumstances required to demonstrate their buffoonery so conveniently are small.

Notice how it all comes together to enable the fantasy to work, and when it's pointed out that he could end up being seriously hurt if he tried his stunt on the wrong person (he'd probably only dare to it to little girls in real life) a further embellishment - the two miles of open road, magically appear.

Those types are merely legends in their own minds.

Harry_Flashman

:T Of course. As you say matey :rotfl:

Mids_Costcutter

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Haha - where's your adherence to 'the law' now? Doesn't it suit your purposes anymore?

Precisely why cycles should be registered, insured and taxed as motors are.

It'd be very interesting to catch you though

Cyclists, like all road users, are of course subject to the law.

What effect do you think registration, insurance and extra taxation would have? It would reduce current low levels of cycling in the UK further still, which would impose additional costs on all of us.

Harry_Flashman

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

What effect do you think registration, insurance and extra taxation would have? It would reduce current low levels of cycling in the UK further still, which would impose additional costs on all of us.

It would give cyclists far more moral right to use the road (don't quote law at me - I know they do under the law) as they would be paying their way.