Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

The centre of the picture is going to be on the left of the centre line of the bike so if you think about it, anything captured on the right hand side of shot will appear to be slightly more to the left than it actually is... especially if shot in wide screen (16:9) format.

Do you know what lens was being used?

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

The centre of the picture is going to be on the left of the centre line of the bike so if you think about it, anything captured on the right hand side of shot will appear to be slightly more to the left than it actually is... especially if shot in wide screen (16:9) format.

And it also means the BMW driver passed closer than it looks like it did :beer:

silverwhistle

tight_scotsman wrote: »

Stay classy guys !!!!

You're right, and I can be the most patient person in the world with a struggling student I'm teaching or tutoring, but I find wilful stupidity and nastiness very difficult to deal with...

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

The motorist 'whinges' about cyclists failing to conform to their code, by filtering in queues, jumping red lights, hopping on to pavements etc etc.
The cyclist in contrast 'whinges' about near misses by motorists that put them in greater danger than they need to be

Brat - I’m really struggling with this. Jumping red lights and hopping onto pavements is illegal, right? But unless it causes a crash of some kind, it doesn’t usually cause any delay to other road users. Neither does filtering.

But it definitely places the perpetrators in greater danger than they need to be (not to mention the pedestrians and other road users whose space they invade).

This thread is about a ‘near-miss’ which was partly caused by a cyclist’s failure to respond appropriately to a ‘clear and immediate’ danger. It was the cyclist’s choice to remain in the path of the approaching car, and the result was entirely predictable. It takes two to tango.

Norman_Castle

Babbawah wrote: »

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.

Its only a "psyclist" in your mind. Whats your hidden agenda. Avoiding been considered a cyclist who complains about motorists?.

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

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.

:rotfl: The camera is about 1 1/2" from the centre.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

This thread is about a ‘near-miss’ which was partly caused by a cyclist’s failure to respond appropriately to a ‘clear and immediate’ danger. It was the cyclist’s choice to remain in the path of the approaching car, and the result was entirely predictable. It takes two to tango.

Who has caused the problem?

boliston

modsandmockers wrote: »

..This thread is about a ‘near-miss’ which was partly caused by a cyclist’s failure to respond appropriately to a ‘clear and immediate’ danger. It was the cyclist’s choice to remain in the path of the approaching car, and the result was entirely predictable. It takes two to tango.

The cyclist appeared to be just cycling along the road normally - did not appear to be in anyone else's "path" (such as failing to give way to another vehicle)

frisbeej

boliston wrote: »

The cyclist appeared to be just cycling along the road normally - did not appear to be in anyone else's "path" (such as failing to give way to another vehicle)

Well to be fair, Mockers also expects trains to get out of the way for cars.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Who has caused the problem?

Well, at the risk of stirring up a whole new can of worms, I would say that the problem is largely caused by the fact that cyclists face no risk of getting points on their licence, nor of losing their no claims bonus. Cyclists appear to be free to behave in any way they like, and omigod don’t they know it...

ps - including jumping level crossings!