cyclists turned right when i overtook

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.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

You yourself provided plenty of reasons not to overtake when you (eventually) provided the streetview. We can all see them.
You were reckless.

Er no
The street view shows no reason not to overtake there and although people have tried to list as many features as they can they have failed to explain why these features make it unsafe to overtake there and i have successfully explained why the vast majority of these listed features are completely irrelevant.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Why else did you have an accident that was your fault?

as i have told you before (you seam to be unable to remember this) i did not have an accident i had a near accident, The accident was avoided due to my alertness and competence. had the accident occurred it would have been the fault of someone who swerved across the road without checking that it was safe, without showing any sign of his intent, and as it later turned out without good reason.

Aylesbury_Duck

kraken776 wrote: »

as i have told you before (you seam to be unable to remember this) i did not have an accident i had a near accident, The accident was avoided due to my alertness and competence. had the accident occurred it would have been the fault of someone who swerved across the road without checking that it was safe, without showing any sign of his intent, and as it later turned out without good reason.

So why begin the post telling us you had an accident and how your insurance company reacted?

Why all the blather about making threats to the cyclist to "persuade" him to not claim?

Why ask about suing your own insurance company?

Why did new facts emerge part way through the story?

Why were you so reluctant to post a streetview link, using some weird logic to claim it would somehow identify you?

Why have you spent pages and pages getting wound up, indignant and downright insulting at anyone making the slightest suggestion that you may be at least partly to blame?

Sorry, those aren't the actions of anyone credible which is why some of us have continually ridiculed your posts. I remain convinced that your original story was true and that you simply pretended it was fictitious when it became clear that you'd got yourself into a corner from which you couldn't escape. You can tell me it was fictitious all you want, I "seam" to have made up my mind based upon the overwhelming evidence you yourself provided.

Joe_Horner

kraken776 wrote: »

[...]
The majority of individual posters agreed with me and the photo as i explained clearly shows a safe place to overtake.

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.

So that'll be "option B" then - genuinely can't see the hazards and has a seriously deficient approach to driving.

Glad we finally got that sorted after all these pages, me out.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

So why begin the post telling us you had an accident and how your insurance company reacted?

Why all the blather about making threats to the cyclist to "persuade" him to not claim?

Why ask about suing your own insurance company?

Why did new facts emerge part way through the story?

Why were you so reluctant to post a streetview link, using some weird logic to claim it would somehow identify you?

Why have you spent pages and pages getting wound up, indignant and downright insulting at anyone making the slightest suggestion that you may be at least partly to blame?

Sorry, those aren't the actions of anyone credible which is why some of us have continually ridiculed your posts. I remain convinced that your original story was true and that you simply pretended it was fictitious when it became clear that you'd got yourself into a corner from which you couldn't escape. You can tell me it was fictitious all you want, I "seam" to have made up my mind based upon the overwhelming evidence you yourself provided.

You still dont get it do you.
All of those things you mentioned mean absolutely NOTHING.

Apart from the fact that some of those things are not true the ones which are true mean NOTHING because my reasons for doing them are completely SUBJECTIVE, They exist only in my mind and there is absolutely no way for any other person to know what they are.

This fact is completely immutable. It is an absolute truth which is in no way subject to any ones opinion and no new evidence or theories will ever change it. This immutable status is a very special status which very few facts have, it is mostly mathematical facts which are immutable.

Aylesbury_Duck

There you go again. Unable to actually answer perfectly reasonable questions about your behaviour on this thread without looking like a fool, you're trying to divert the discussion to one about immutable facts and verifiable truths. It's this evasiveness that has ensured this thread has run to 30 pages.

If none of what you said happened, you are absolutely certain of your total innocence and you are only prepared to entertain your own views on the matter or those of (non-existent) posters who completely agree with you, why did you come onto a forum (definition: a medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged) in the first place?

hugheskevi

Speaking of mathematics and immutable facts, one thing which puzzled me...The following information has been provided in the thread:

- The start of the cycle lane was 40 meters away.
- The speed limit was 30 mph
- The car was being driven at or below 30 mph

Assuming the car is moving at 30 mph, that is a speed of 13.4 metres per second. That means the car reaches the start of the cycle lane in under 3 seconds. The start of the cycle lane is also where the road has an island blocking one carriageway.

The cyclists would also have been moving, at an unknown speed. If they were moving at 20 mph that is 8.9 metres per second, meaning that at the point the road changes to a single lane the distance between car and cycle would be about 13.5 metres.

That all sounds like overtaking extremely close to where the road narrows to single carriageway?

Aylesbury_Duck

hugheskevi wrote: »

That all sounds like overtaking extremely close to where the road narrows to single carriageway?

Bingo. All kraken's philosophical fluff and self-righteousness blown away in one quick calculation that sums up the situation. Given his new-found love of immutable facts, he'll enjoy this one. I expect that in response, he'll come up with some nonsense about how time dilation caused distance contraction and that you cannot possibly comment as an observer because your frame of reference differs from his. Special relativity causes everyone else's view of the collision to differ from his own.

I'm not sure we'll ever see the likes of this thread again. 30 pages of angry, defensive and inconsistent wriggling for an accident the OP belatedly claims never happened. Bizarre but amusing.

kraken776

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

There you go again. Unable to actually answer perfectly reasonable questions about your behaviour on this thread without looking like a fool, you're trying to divert the discussion to one about immutable facts and verifiable truths. It's this evasiveness that has ensured this thread has run to 30 pages.

If none of what you said happened, you are absolutely certain of your total innocence and you are only prepared to entertain your own views on the matter or those of (non-existent) posters who completely agree with you, why did you come onto a forum (definition: a medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged) in the first place?

My god your doing it again, multiple times!

I just explained to you, AGAIN, that you cannot infer anything from my behaviors on this forum because you have no way to know why I behaved in such a way.
Other posters on here have said words to a similar effect

For this reason, and the fact that it is not directly relevant to the matter being discussed I do not have to "answer perfectly reasonable questions about your behaviour on this thread" and my choice not to do so cannot be held against me in any way.

It also means that you cannot tell me that "you're trying to divert the discussion". In fact this is not what i attempted to do and since the reaons for my actions are entirely subjective you cannot claim otherwise. OF course you are going to do so AGAIN and in doing so you wil,l make a fool out of yourself again.

No reasonable person would have to be told this
No minimally intelligent person would have to be told this.

Yet i have had to tell you this many times.

Previously i made a reference to your stupidity by using a phrase that has the same meaning as swine manure. Sadly admin decided to delete this.
So from now on every single time you make this mistake I am going to say
oink oink.

kraken776

hugheskevi wrote: »

Speaking of mathematics and immutable facts, one thing which puzzled me...The following information has been provided in the thread:

- The start of the cycle lane was 40 meters away.
- The speed limit was 30 mph
- The car was being driven at or below 30 mph

Assuming the car is moving at 30 mph, that is a speed of 13.4 metres per second. That means the car reaches the start of the cycle lane in under 3 seconds. The start of the cycle lane is also where the road has an island blocking one carriageway.

The cyclists would also have been moving, at an unknown speed. If they were moving at 20 mph that is 8.9 metres per second, meaning that at the point the road changes to a single lane the distance between car and cycle would be about 13.5 metres.

That all sounds like overtaking extremely close to where the road narrows to single carriageway?

I am not going to go though the maths myself so for the purpose of this post i will assume your maths is correct, but this does not mean i have accepted that it is.

3 seconds is MORE than enough time to safely overtake a cyclist.

Also this was a clear road with clear visibility of the road ahead, there was no reason to believe that anything would go wrong or that I would need to abort the maneuver.

Also, had it become apparent that i had misjudged the situation i could easily have aborted at any point before reaching the chicane with no risk to anybody.

The only reason there was any potential for harm is because the cyclist changed direction without warning. I was able to respond to this quickly enough - surely this is proof that i was driving safely and carefully.