Driver clips cyclist, doesn't tweet about it

Driver clips cyclist, doesn't tweet about it

Author
Discussion

Aretnap

1,643 posts

150 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
She was talking about the same incident on Twitter and the BBC - she said so herself - and in one version she definitely knocked someone off, in the other she definitely didn't. Clearly she was either lying about the incident on Twitter (exaggerating as you might call it) or lying on the BBC. Obviously I don't know for sure which version is true... but I have an opinion on which is more likely to be true.

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
She was talking about the same incident on Twitter and the BBC - she said so herself - and in one version she definitely knocked someone off, in the other she definitely didn't. Clearly she was either lying about the incident on Twitter (exaggerating as you might call it) or lying on the BBC. Obviously I don't know for sure which version is true... but I have an opinion on which is more likely to be true.
BBC Article said:
"The tweet and the incident are completely different, it doesn't relate to the accident," she said.
All very confusing.

It very much looks like she's drowning in her own bullst.

RB Will

9,662 posts

239 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
So if the tweeted thing and the other incident are different than does that mean she has clipped one cyclist AND knocked one off?

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
RB Will said:
So if the tweeted thing and the other incident are different than does that mean she has clipped one cyclist AND knocked one off?
There was an incident and contact with a cyclist.

She tweeted that she had an incident and contact with a cyclist, but she wasn't tweeting about the incident earlier that morning. Perhaps she was being comedic, or something...

Mill Wheel

6,149 posts

195 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
BigBob][quote said:
Mr Hockley, a member of Iceni Velo cycling club, said he was nearing the end of the Boudicca Sportive 100-mile ride when a car came towards him at speed on the wrong side of a narrow country lane.
Is it possible to be on the 'wrong side of a narrow country lane.'?

BB
Yes, we have lots of them around us, and most drivers invariably travel closer to the right hand wall than the left. Most do so at a pace that allows them to slow to a stop, or pull over to the left side while they pass an oncoming road user - but there are always a few that don't - and many of those are women.

Fartomatic5000

558 posts

154 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

If a bint drives into a cyclist but doesn't tweet about it, does he fall off?

Corpulent Tosser

5,459 posts

244 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
Aretnap said:
simoid said:
We don't know she's lying...
Well, at least one of these statements is not true.

Stupid person on Twitter said:
Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier.
Responsible driver on the BBC said:
He did wobble slightly but he was upright, he was fine.
Equally one of these is not true
The cyclists response to the tweet said:
" Oh hi! That was me you hit and FYI, you didn't knock me off, I'm too hard to be hurt by a pissy micra or whatever it was you were driving."
same cyclist said:
he was nearing the end of the Boudicca Sportive 100-mile ride when a car came towards him at speed on the wrong side of a narrow country lane.
The car's wing mirror clipped him and he was launched from the bike into a hedge.
Though regardless which she should have stopped, and certainly shouldn't have posted the incident on twitter




Pip1968

1,346 posts

203 months

Friday 24th May 2013
quotequote all
CT why is one of those statements in quotes and the other not? I assume it relates to where you got those statements from.

Maybe he was just being clever and whilst he was not knocked off he did crash into the hedge. Or maybe he is lying about being knocked off hence no charges. Either way she is a young idiot who should have stopped got out of her car and checked and not posted anything at all, anywhere.

I do not know what this child like obsession with writing every little sh@t on Farcebook or Twitter.

Morons.

Pip

T0nup

683 posts

199 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Pip1968 said:
TOnup, I believe they are perfectly within their right to ride two abreast. There is also a reccommendation for the distance they should be from the curb which errs towards not too close so that you are visible, have room for manoeuvre and miss all the drains.

Pip
Perhaps they are, in the same way that I am perfectly entitled to drive at 10 MPH directly in front of them, but it wouldn't stop them from being pissed off at being held back, in the same way that the que of traffic that normally has to file behind them as they wait to get by a two abreast.

I wouldn't do that to them, so why should they do it to every other road user.

It's just the inconsiderate behaviour of some cyclists that gets my goat. Along with the fact that the law, 9 times out of 10 will side with the cyclist when things go wrong, when in many cases it's the cyclist that's done something completely stupid. Jumped lights, cycled up the inside of a que when there clearly isn't room, Cycled up the inside of wagon clearly indicating and positioned to turn left... To name but a few I have seen and experienced.

What's more, those I have met, seem either incapable or unwilling of accepting responsibility for their own actions. It's always someone elses fault that they got knocked off or fell off, or simply rode headlong into that muddy ditch cos they couldn't be asked to see where they were going. (That was funny to see) And still he wanted to blame a bystander who had no clue what he was being fking blamed for.

I'm sure most are intelligent, considerate, and skilled riders... But some, like drivers, do not exhibit these qualities when riding.

rpguk

4,458 posts

283 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
She comes across as sincere, but incredibly it appears that she hasn't actually understood what she's done wrong or why people are angry at her. I get the impression she's not used to being held to account.

Her solicitor comes across as someone off the high street who is used to doing a bit of conveyancing but always fancied being on TV. When this came along I think he jumped at the chance even though telling her to shut her mouth would have been better advice.

Parsnip

3,122 posts

187 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
T0nup said:
Perhaps they are, in the same way that I am perfectly entitled to drive at 10 MPH directly in front of them, but it wouldn't stop them from being pissed off at being held back, in the same way that the que of traffic that normally has to file behind them as they wait to get by a two abreast.
You doing that would be you deliberatley causing disruption. The cyclists aren't trying to cause you disruption, they are trying to keep safe.

Cycling 2 abreast is to force drivers to give you room (which works) and also to make the overtake easier as you are overtaking a shorter thing - if there isn't room to get past 2 cyclists riding side by side, then there isn't room to get past one.

When cycling (and more and more while driving) I treat every other road user as dangerous and stupid - maybe only 1 in 100 is, but you have no idea when that 1 will come up. On a bike, if my proper positioning annoys 100 drivers and I don't get knocked off by the 1 idiot, then for the other 99 - tough really, whichever way you spin it, my life IS more important than you getting to your destination 12 seconds earlier. Despite all my efforts, I got hit by cars 3 times during 19,000 miles on the bike at uni - and I considered myself lucky - can you imagine if someone pranged your car once every 6,000 miles and you thought yourself lucky?

All the "share the road" and "give and take" does not work - as said above, there are idiots on the road, and unless you force them to treat you properly on the bike then you will get hurt - not everyone on the road is a good driver and you cannot tell when a bad one will come along. Apologies if it comes off as confrontational, but it isn't - I don't sit in the middle of the lane on an approach to a roundabout to annoy you - I do it to stay safe - it costs you 15 seconds - get over it.

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Parsnip said:
Cycling 2 abreast is to force drivers to give you room (which works) and also to make the overtake easier as you are overtaking a shorter thing.
Fair enough point, as long as one is not forcing drivers to wait when a safe overtake would be possible past single file cyclists.


Parsnip said:
If there isn't room to get past 2 cyclists riding side by side, then there isn't room to get past one.
Strongly disagree.

AH33

2,066 posts

134 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
maybe we should all start driving 2 abreast?

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
AH33 said:
maybe we should all start driving 2 abreast?
Been on a motorway recently? hehe

Parsnip

3,122 posts

187 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
simoid said:
Parsnip said:
Cycling 2 abreast is to force drivers to give you room (which works) and also to make the overtake easier as you are overtaking a shorter thing.
Fair enough point, as long as one is not forcing drivers to wait when a safe overtake would be possible past single file cyclists.


Parsnip said:
If there isn't room to get past 2 cyclists riding side by side, then there isn't room to get past one.
Strongly disagree.
Don't take my word for it.



Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Parsnip said:
Don't take my word for it.

I'm confused. If you give the outside cyclist as much room as a car, the car in the photo would have to be on the verge. OR a single cyclist doesn't need as much space as a car. Which is it?

T0nup

683 posts

199 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Parsnip said:
You doing that would be you deliberatley causing disruption. The cyclists aren't trying to cause you disruption, they are trying to keep safe.

Cycling 2 abreast is to force drivers to give you room (which works) and also to make the overtake easier as you are overtaking a shorter thing - if there isn't room to get past 2 cyclists riding side by side, then there isn't room to get past one.

When cycling (and more and more while driving) I treat every other road user as dangerous and stupid - maybe only 1 in 100 is, but you have no idea when that 1 will come up. On a bike, if my proper positioning annoys 100 drivers and I don't get knocked off by the 1 idiot, then for the other 99 - tough really, whichever way you spin it, my life IS more important than you getting to your destination 12 seconds earlier. Despite all my efforts, I got hit by cars 3 times during 19,000 miles on the bike at uni - and I considered myself lucky - can you imagine if someone pranged your car once every 6,000 miles and you thought yourself lucky?

All the "share the road" and "give and take" does not work - as said above, there are idiots on the road, and unless you force them to treat you properly on the bike then you will get hurt - not everyone on the road is a good driver and you cannot tell when a bad one will come along. Apologies if it comes off as confrontational, but it isn't - I don't sit in the middle of the lane on an approach to a roundabout to annoy you - I do it to stay safe - it costs you 15 seconds - get over it.
As I said, I wouldn't deliberately drive at an unsafe speed in front of cyclists purely for my own gratification.
But there is one thing that worries me.
You consider riding two abreast on a fast moving A road to be safe?... When it takes only that one idiot -and I'll admit that they are out there -to misjudge their speed, get distracted, swerve to avoid an on coming vehicle, or whatever, and a rider is toast... I grant you that would be down to the driver, but regardless of who's fault, the rider is just as dead or badly injured. And how can you say that that passing two riders is the same as passing one? Simply, it's not. Giving enough safe room to one rider you can pass with ease and in safety on most two lane roads. Having to give safe passing room to two riders abreast in practical terms is not the same. I fail to see how getting dead is forcing other road users to respect you as a cyclist? One thing I do know, if I rode a bicycle, the last place I would want to ride is in the middle of the freakin road A B or otherwise.

I don't mind confrontational. I'm not right every time, but I do know when something is quite wrong, and the one way respect traffic that many cyclists expect purely by vertue of the fact that they choose to ride a bicyle is quite definately wrong.

I'll get over it, when cyclists are licenced, pay road tax and have to have compulsory insurance, so I guess I never will.

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Munter said:
Parsnip said:
Don't take my word for it.

I'm confused. If you give the outside cyclist as much room as a car, the car in the photo would have to be on the verge. OR a single cyclist doesn't need as much space as a car. Which is it?
And you're therefore allowed to plough into the outside cyclist if they're 4 abreast?

silly

Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
simoid said:
Munter said:
Parsnip said:
Don't take my word for it.

I'm confused. If you give the outside cyclist as much room as a car, the car in the photo would have to be on the verge. OR a single cyclist doesn't need as much space as a car. Which is it?
And you're therefore allowed to plough into the outside cyclist if they're 4 abreast?

silly
By your rule the overtaking car would be well into the field if they are 4 abreast. Space for 4 cycles + additional to make it up to the space you'd leave 1 car if that car was the outside cyclist. Or cyclists do not need equivalent space to a car if you can pass closer to the outside cyclist, than if they were a car.

It's simple logic. Either they need a cars space (therefore cannot be overtaken in the space available, if riding 2+ abreast), or they don't, and you can overtake clsoer...say 3 feet. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one and stick with it.

simoid

Original Poster:

19,772 posts

157 months

Tuesday 28th May 2013
quotequote all
Not my rule wink