Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

silverwhistle

modsandmockers wrote: »

Welcome to Troll Heaven - We Are The Special Ones!

You didn't need to tell us.

tight_scotsman

Another thread decends into slanging match. Stay classy guys !!!!

Babbawah

Tobster86 wrote: »

The anti-cyclist brigade on this forum are convincing me that I should report it though. I have the opportunity to do my part to save the rest of us from having to share the roads with such morons, so feel duty bound to do so.

I'm not sure that anyone in the whole wide world is actually anti-cyclist though !

I agree that cyclists have a problem. A very serious problem IMO. But a few seem to go about doing nothing about it other than moaning and whinging.

In order of preference I'm a motorcyclist first, then I'm a pedestrian, followed closely by a motorist, a cyclist then a horse rider.

Yesterday, I drove a truck back from a motorcycle race test session, at one junction in Leicestershire I was waiting to turn left when a cyclist squeezed up my nearside.

Would I have been the nasty person if I'd gone for my gap and killed him or would he have been the nasty one for making me live the rest of my life with the memory of him chewed up by the back wheels ?

Spicy_McHaggis

Babbawah wrote: »

I'm not sure that anyone in the whole wide world is actually anti-cyclist though !

I agree that cyclists have a problem. A very serious problem IMO. But a few seem to go about doing nothing about it other than moaning and whinging.

In order of preference I'm a motorcyclist first, then I'm a pedestrian, followed closely by a motorist, a cyclist then a horse rider.

Yesterday, I drove a truck back from a motorcycle race test session, at one junction in Leicestershire I was waiting to turn left when a cyclist squeezed up my nearside.

Would I have been the nasty person if I'd gone for my gap and killed him or would he have been the nasty one for making me live the rest of my life with the memory of him chewed up by the back wheels ?

As you were stationary when you saw him, you'd be the nasty person.

Babbawah

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

As you were stationary when you saw him, you'd be the nasty person.

On the basis that only a PSYCHOPATH would've moved the truck after seeing him . . . . I'm not sure that we're on the same wavelength.

What would I have been had I not seen him . . . the point being that I knew to look for him . . . !

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise you were there.

Of course I was there!

On Streetview and on Google Satellite.

Using those facilities and the video, it's not difficult to work out a good approximation of the road width, lane width, the distance the cyclist is from the kerb, the speed of the bike, the speed of the car, the type of pavement, the speed limit, the distance to the 30mph limit, the type of path, the availability of cycle paths, etc etc.

The wide angled lens means that the closest ground view will be pretty close to the front of the bike. This means that when the BMW first comes into view its lateral road position will not have significantly altered from the point where it overtook, especially when you see how gradually it returns to it's lane position. This means that the offside wheels would hardly have been over the centre line, which (when you do some arithmetic) suggests that the gap between the BMW and Tobsters elbow will have been no more than 20 to 30cm or 8 - 12 inches.

modsandmockers

Babbawah wrote: »

I'm not sure that anyone in the whole wide world is actually anti-cyclist though !

I agree that cyclists have a problem. A very serious problem IMO. But a few seem to go about doing nothing about it other than moaning and whinging.

In order of preference I'm a motorcyclist first, then I'm a pedestrian, followed closely by a motorist, a cyclist then a horse rider.

Yesterday, I drove a truck back from a motorcycle race test session, at one junction in Leicestershire I was waiting to turn left when a cyclist squeezed up my nearside.

Would I have been the nasty person if I'd gone for my gap and killed him or would he have been the nasty one for making me live the rest of my life with the memory of him chewed up by the back wheels ?

If the cyclist had been on foot, then Brat would probably have taken him away for questioning (vagrancy, begging, illegal entry, creating a public nuisance, obstructing the highway - I’m sure there would be something). But because he was on a bike, then it’s fine - he has the same status as trucks, buses and BMWs.

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

If the cyclist had been on foot, then Brat would probably have taken him away for questioning (vagrancy, begging, illegal entry, creating a public nuisance, obstructing the highway - I’m sure there would be something). But because he was on a bike, then it’s fine - he has the same status as trucks, buses and BMWs.

Don't judge others by your standards. If the op had been anything other than a cyclist you, and others, wouldn't be so intent on finding fault with them.

Babbawah

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Don't judge others by your standards. If the op had been anything other than a cyclist you, and others, wouldn't be so intent on finding fault with them.

Yeah but . . . it's not just a fellow cyclist is it?

It's a psyclist who bleats, moans and whinges. Cries like a child at the slightest draught of a fellow road user passing him by.

Like an environmentalist pop star who flies into the climate summit on a private jet, it's not really a cyclist is it?

It's just another phoney trying to sneak out its hidden agenda.

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-iyJRLLlHbfWDRsVHZvVXd1Y0k/view

Bracket on the left.

This then shows that the centre of the picture is where the camera is (on the left of the bike) making the distance from the kerb more than suggested.