Cyclist rear ended me

brat

George_Michael wrote: »

Originally_posted_by_George_Michael wrote:

After reading the OP's reply to your post and the replies of others, are you going to be man enough to admit that your response was ill thought out and may well have been totally incorrect?

It appears not.

Why are you and Arcon so vexed about this?
Strider clearly feels the OP may not have told the truth. The OP says that his version is correct. Both versions are plausible.

It's no big deal.

Strider590

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you really think that someone would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough so that the cyclist couldn't stop in time.

Yes

And if that's too hard to believe, go type "MGIF" into YouTube, get a drink first though, you could be there quite some time.

George_Michael

brat wrote: »

Why are you and Arcon so vexed about this?

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it's right for someone to come on a board such as this and blatantly accuse another person of lying or distorting the truth without any evidence at all.

In their first post on this thread, Strider clearly stated that the OP must have just overtaken the cyclist and then stopped in front of them. Unless Strider was actually there or saw cctv images of what happened, how can he possibly know what must have happened?

shaun_from_Africa

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you really think that someone would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough so that the cyclist couldn't stop in time.

Strider590 wrote: »

Yes

And if that's too hard to believe, go type "MGIF" into YouTube, get a drink first though, you could be there quite some time.

Oh dear.
Selectively copying an earlier post to try and back up your point does you no favours.
Why did you miss out the most important part of what I stated? You even added a full stop after the bit you did post to make it look like it was where I ended my sentence.

What my original unedited post actually stated was:

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you really think that someone would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough so that the cyclist couldn't stop in time and then the cyclist would simply ride off without trying to get the driver's details and the car driver themselves would report this incident to the police?

facade

When I'm out cycling, people do it all the time. If I didn't do their thinking for them, and start braking when there is still time I'd have been hospitalised a long while ago.

Favorite is overtaking me just before they turn left. This wouldn't be a problem if they could drive as well as they think, but their version of turning left involves veering out onto the off side of the road, then braking to walking pace to go round.

(I start braking as soon as they start swinging out to the offside, before the indicator goes on.)

facade

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So you really think that someone would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough so that the cyclist couldn't stop in time and then the cyclist would simply ride off without trying to get the driver's details and the car driver themselves would report this incident to the police?

Quite. If I were the cyclist, I'd be looking for enough compensayshun to never have to do a days work again
(First is to lie in the road not moving but groaning until the ambulance takes me away on a spine board........)

dacouch

facade wrote: »

When I'm out cycling, people do it all the time. If I didn't do their thinking for them, and start braking when there is still time I'd have been hospitalised a long while ago.

Favorite is overtaking me just before they turn left. This wouldn't be a problem if they could drive as well as they think, but their version of turning left involves veering out onto the off side of the road, then braking to walking pace to go round.

(I start braking as soon as they start swinging out to the offside, before the indicator goes on.)

I see it all the time, it's shocking how few drivers plan ahead for potential hazards and actually bother to look in their mirrors.

Adjusting your speed to allow a cyclist to make a turn or get in front of you at a junction will literally cost you seconds but those few seconds will be made up later in your journey or if you don't make them up who cares about losing a few seconds.

Strider590

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Oh dear.
Selectively copying an earlier post to try and back up your point does you no favours.
Why did you miss out the most important part of what I stated? You even added a full stop after the bit you did post to make it look like it was where I ended my sentence.

What my original unedited post actually stated was:

So your not denying it then?

That a driver would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough to cause the cyclist to hit them?

shaun_from_Africa

Strider590 wrote: »

So your not denying it then?

That a driver would overtake a cyclist and brake sharply enough to cause the cyclist to hit them?

What are you finding so hard to understand about my comment?
For the third and final time, what I stated was that would a driver overtake a cyclist and cause an accident and then go to the police to report what had happened?

By distorting (and by that I mean actually editing an earlier post by cutting parts off and ending the quoted sentence early), you have in my opinion, lost all credibility on here.

brat

George_Michael wrote: »

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think it's right for someone to come on a board such as this and blatantly accuse another person of lying or distorting the truth without any evidence at all.

I don't think you should accuse someone of accusing another of lying if that's not correct. Strider didn't accuse anyone of lying. He made a judgement about what the OP must have done, and the OP said he was wrong.
Strider hasn't then gone on to say that the OP was lying.

I do think that he was a little forthright in his assertion, and he did apologise for that in his post, but it's probably because, from his (and my)own cycling experience, his analysis would be the far more regular occurrence.