cyclists turned right when i overtook

NBLondon

kraken776 wrote: »

In fact I would like you to appolgise for thinking that I would not point this out.

I was quite aware that the statistics quoted are not a reliable indicator of posting quality... There's an even simpler explanation that on other areas of these forums, thanks are used not necessarily to indicate agreement but merely that a particular post has been read and this therefore can lead to ratios well above 500%. You would have to analyse the pattern of thanks in a given thread to have an indication of whether it was a reliable indicator and then include the possibility of cliquing.


My final post in that statement is a deliberate non-sequituur introduced for comic effect and the responses indicate that it was successful, at least in part.


I have no need to appolgise [sic] except to those who wish this thread would end but I would like to thank you for taking the bait and entertaining many of us once again.


Perhaps you'd like to help emmasaunders (once and again) out too?

BeenThroughItAll

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?

When worlds collide. Or threads... one of those at any rate.

custardy

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone - this forum is full of who is at fault, yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares, i gaurantee the police didn't pursue a prosecution though, if he was so wreckless why not?

Nothing happened. It was a hypothetical incident......

almillar

yes the insurance company may find him to be at fault, who cares

kraken does. That was his question. Until he revealed that it was hypothetical. Everyone in the forum is banging on about blame because posters ask 'did I do wrong?', 'what else could I have done?', 'what will the police/insurance do?', then SOME posters don't like the advice they're given...

Joe_Horner

emmasaundersagain wrote: »

the trouble with this thread is people are looking to blame others - what happened to kraken could have happened to anyone

Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.

kraken776

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Nope, can safely say that there's absolutely no way in the world it could have happened to me.

Because, having read his description of the alleged incident and having "walked" the Google street view for the location he gave there is absolutely no way I would have been reckless enough to try an overtake there.

UM
that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

furthermore describing overtaking here as "reckless" does not magically make it so.

By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question discredits you not me because it highlights the fact that your view cannot be supported by rational arguments and will not stand up to any scrutiny

well done.

Richard53

kraken776 wrote: »

By attempting to defend your irrational point of view by describing the action in question with a negative word, without actually explaining what is wrong with the action in question

"Reckless, adj. Utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless"


That explains what is wrong.


Sorry, what would have been wrong, had the incident ever happened.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

You yourself provided plenty of reasons not to overtake when you (eventually) provided the streetview. We can all see them.
You were reckless. Why else did you have an accident that was your fault?

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

UM
that road is more than a 1/2 mile long straight with very clear visibility ahead and no reason not to overtake most of the time.
Overtaking on this road is not in any way reckless

You posted a streetview link, I stood on the (virtual) road and moved from one end to the other of the stretch in question.

As a very experienced driver who has never come close to hitting a cyclist (imaginary or otherwise), I easily identified at least half a dozen features that made overtaking there potentially unsafe. I seem to remember listing them for your help at the time but really CBA to go back and look for that post.

Lots of other experienced drivers on here found similar lists of hazards and said they would'nt have overtaken there. That was with a low resolution streetview look at the place. I have very little doubt that, if any of us were driving it for real, there would have been more.

You can keep saying it was a safe place to overtake as much as you like, but the clear photographic evidence proves that it isn't. Those are undeniable facts with evidence to support them.

Your unsupported (except by your own repetition) assertion that it was safe is therefore either lying (ie: you know it was risky but did it anyway) or shows a serious deficiency in your approach to driving if you genuinely didn't see those hazards.

kraken776

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You posted a streetview link, I stood on the (virtual) road and moved from one end to the other of the stretch in question.

As a very experienced driver who has never come close to hitting a cyclist (imaginary or otherwise), I easily identified at least half a dozen features that made overtaking there potentially unsafe. I seem to remember listing them for your help at the time but really CBA to go back and look for that post.

I am also a experienced driver with 20+ years driving experience, I have never hit a cyclist and this is the only near miss i have had.

There are many posters on this thread who said i did nothing wrong. some said i did nothing wrong but evidence may be a problem. The vast majority fall into these groups, only small minority of very vocal repeat posters have said i did anything wrong and they haven't been able to cite a single reason why it would have been unsafe (more on this bellow).

Listing features which makes overtaking "potentially unsafe" is not enough. Any stretch of road is going to have an enormous amount of "features" which a person can list. Evidence of this is that i have been able to successfully explain why ALL of the "features" people have claimed did not make it unsafe. Most of these features were too far away to be relevant at the time or in one extreme case a feature which did not exist at all (someone literally mentioned something which was not there, i pointed out that it did not exist then latter on this person stupidly said the same thing again).

To show that overtaking there was dangerous you have to at the very least cite a feature which would have caused an accident without a 3rd party doing something negligent (such as shooting across the road without checking it was safe and without any warning whatsoever) So far no one on this thread has been able to do that.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You can keep saying it was a safe place to overtake as much as you like, but the clear photographic evidence proves that it isn't. Those are undeniable facts with evidence to support them.

No you have that the wrong way around.
There is clear photographic evidence that it was safe to overtake there.
There was clear photographic evidence which clearly shows a straight road with visibility ahead for 1/4 a mile and sufficient road width to overtake a cyclist for a length which was far more than what i required to perform the maneuver.
If there had been an accident it would have been because the cyclist changed course and shot across the road without looking or giving any sort of signal, this act of negligence was an absolute necessity for there to be an accident while overtaking here.

Out of all of the many features listed only one of them could be relevant. ALL of the other features which people have tried to use against me literally had NOTHING to do with the cyclists action and could not have had anything to do with it had the circumstances been different.

The one feature in question is the driveways.
He could have turned right to go into one of those. Although his actions after the near miss show that he was not doing this so even this was not actually relevant under the circumstances as they were.
Had it been different and he actually had been turning into one of those, although a careful and competent driver would anticipate a reasonable possibility that a cyclist might turn into one a competent and careful driver would not anticipate areasonable possibility that he will do this without checking his surrounding and without showing some sort of sign.

To suggest that overtaking a cyclist while going past a driveways wrong effectively means that your cant overtake a cyclist in any built up area. This is an absurdity. Virtually no driver would stay behind a cyclist indefinitely while in a village or urban area.

To be clear about what i mean when i say reasonable possibility consider this
a driver on a road that runs parallel to a train track knows that a train could derail, but it is not a possibility that he would consider when driving. There for this event is not a reasonable possibility.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Your unsupported (except by your own repetition) assertion that it was safe is therefore either lying (ie: you know it was risky but did it anyway) or shows a serious deficiency in your approach to driving if you genuinely didn't see those hazards.

Nope, my claims are not unsupported.
The majority of individual posters agreed with me and the photo as i explained clearly shows a safe place to overtake.