Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Exactly. It's classic prejudice - a judging of someone based on the ignorance of the judger.

prej·u·dice n.
1.a. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions:
1.b. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts:

YAWN ZZZZzzzzz

silverwhistle

Tilt wrote: »

But I am not convinced it was the BMW that sounded his horn.

You've heard from the OP that it was the BMW, so if you are going to doubt anything the poster says about the situation, why comment at all, at length?

Frankly, if the poster were slightly further out than they say they were it shouldn't matter a bit in terms of the response of the driver. It would suggest you haven't understood a bit about the discourse on the primary/secondary position.

I'll be getting my bike ready soon for the better weather, but as a skier I am responsible as the faster and uphill skier to avoid those I am passing, as a sailor I have to obey Colregs. Why is it so difficult for motorists?

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

The footage suggests that you MAY of been further out into the road than you possibly were purely because there is no reference point of your bike in shot. Equally there is no reference point in shot to actually show how close the BMW came. For example, for all I know the camera could of been on the end of a stick. So my opinion (and it is just that; an opinion) is purely based on the footage available.


This is why I am merely expressing an opinion based on the footage I have seen.

Now you know the exact camera position which shows the bikes road position, why are you not changing your opinion, as you did during jury service, based on the extra information?.

If the op was proven to be riding in the secondary position would you concede they were not at fault?.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Now you know the exact camera position which shows the bikes road position, why are you not changing your opinion, as you did during jury service, based on the extra information?.

To be fair to Tilt, I think he has moved quite a bit on this first point...

Tilt wrote: »

IF however, you were where you say you were (and I concede I may [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] have misunderstood your stated position in the road), then I would agree the BMW seemed to be unnecessarily too close.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If the op was proven to be riding in the secondary position would you concede they were not at fault?.

This is the big question that needs to be addressed. Cyclists do suffer from a predetermination by many road users that their road position is wrong, when in fact it is not.

That's not a fault of the cyclist, who has every right to maintain a safe position on the road and every right to expect a bit of wiggle room on either side of his position. The problem is that many more guarded cyclists have been bullied into taking a position nearer to the verge or kerb, and a lot of motorists now wrongly believe that's where we all should be.

matttye

Car driver is an idiot. Cyclist did nothing wrong. That much is obvious.

On the way home today I saw a car hit a cyclist coming up to traffic lights. Only slightly nudged him, but it was another case of someone trying to overtake with insufficient space. After a little bit of road raging at each other they carried on.

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Now you know the exact camera position which shows the bikes road position, why are you not changing your opinion, as you did during jury service, based on the extra information?.

First of all the footage does not show "the bike's road position" as no part of the bike is captured in the footage. Secondly when I was doing my jury service, there were two different video's of the same incident (as I think I made clear in post #321). The first footage didn't show the same important detail as the second footage did. Bearing this in mind and in the absence of any part of the bike/rider being captured in the footage, is why my opinion is as it is.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

If the op was proven to be riding in the secondary position would you concede they were not at fault?.

I think I agreed with this in post #321 with the emphasis on IF.

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

I think I agreed with this in post #321 with the emphasis on IF.

Ok, would the BMW driver have been in the right if I were in primary position, and why?

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

Ok, would the BMW driver have been in the right if I were in primary position, and why?

Have I not already answered that in post #321?

Tobster86

Tilt wrote: »

Have I not already answered that in post #321?

TL;DR.

But the only difference would have been the BMW would have had to be further over. Would he have been right to use the horn in that situation, and why?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Norman_Castle wrote:

If the op was proven to be riding in the secondary position would you concede they were not at fault?.

I think I agreed with this in post #321 with the emphasis on IF.

You didn't agree with it in post 321.

But you are agreeing now, so I guess the lesson is learned. Forget the IF, though, we should all now agree he was in the secondary position. You really would need to be blind not to see that from the video.