One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 3

[fire3500]

Hol said:

Yes he was - In a left turn only lane that would typically mean 99.99% of the time that he is turning left. In his left hand, left turn only road.

No matter how much road going responsibility you decide to remove from the biker and lay on the motorist, the motorist acted correctly and the biker did not.

Edited by Hol on Tuesday 13th October 16:36

Also, bikes have to slow down for corners too, just like cars. If the bike was not slowing down or even accelerating up my inside then that would ring alarm bells as I'd more likely expect a bike turning left at a roundabout to be slowing and indicating to make that turn. If they were not slowing down and not indicating then I'd be interested to see where this was going and either holding back myself at the approach to the roundabout and letting the bike get ahead so I could check out what comes next from a position of advantage or looking in that mirror further to see what develops, not making an assumption and looking right to see if I could scoot out.

[DrTre]

The failure would be failing to comply with road directions wouldn't it? Nothing to do with defensive riding
.

Haven't a clue where the idea of 'quickly' comes into it either, nothing was remotely mentioned about speed.


Expect the unexpected is all very well however in the context of the thread title the biker was a knob, that's it.

[Hackney]

fire3500 said:

Cliftonite said:

Stupid motorcyclist using wrong lane cuts up motorist driving by the book and it is the car driver's fault!

Only on PH!

OK, point to where in the "book" it say that:

"I wasn't expecting anyone to do that, saw him coming in my side mirror but assumed he was going left."

is "driving by the book"?

So, someone behind you, in a different lane - the wrong lane actually - passes you on as you join a roundabout, changes lanes right in front of you and it's *your* fault? Tell me where that's in "the book"

You seem to be suggesting that if you see a motorbike you should immediately stop until the motorcyclist has done whatever he needs to do before proceeding. "I wasn't expecting him to do that" could mean, nearly get himself killed!

[fire3500]

Hackney said:

So, someone behind you, in a different lane - the wrong lane actually - passes you on as you join a roundabout, changes lanes right in front of you and it's *your* fault? Tell me where that's in "the book"

You seem to be suggesting that if you see a motorbike you should immediately stop until the motorcyclist has done whatever he needs to do before proceeding. "I wasn't expecting him to do that" could mean, nearly get himself killed!

No I don't... I am suggesting that in the hierarchy of vulnerability a bike is more vulnerable than a car (just as a bicycle is more vulnerable than a motorbike and a pedestrian is more vulnerable than a bicycle), and that accordingly the bike rider shouldn't make dick-moves that put him/herself at risk and the car driver COULD make an effort to see and accommodate the more vulnerable road user in his/her plans, and this reduces the risk of a collision.

Courtesy is ultimately what it comes down to, something there's not enough of on the roads...

[fire3500]

DrTre said:

The failure would be failing to comply with road directions wouldn't it? Nothing to do with defensive riding
.

Haven't a clue where the idea of 'quickly' comes into it either, nothing was remotely mentioned about speed.


Expect the unexpected is all very well however in the context of the thread title the biker was a knob, that's it.

Not explicitly but implicitly.

The car driver was moving towards the roundabout and the bike moved from being visible in the side mirror to being in front of the car, that implies that the bike was going faster than the car, no? Could that not have been observed? Is that me being a knob, suggesting that the car driver might have seen this bike, seen it accelerate from being at least level with the passenger door, if not further behind, and observed it move in front of his own car?

I'm at a loss here...

[Europa1]

IanH755 said:

I saw a prime example of an aggressive moron causing a massive issue "just because" this morning.

• *setting the scene*** - I live near Leeds Castle in Kent and use the A20 to get to J8 of the M20 everyday. Between the Castle and the motorway there is a very short dual carriage way leading to a roundabout with two exits, the A20 to Maidstone and the M20. The road signs and markings show that the left lane is for the A20 and the right lane is for the M20.

• *the incident*** - This morning I was behind a Range Rover in the right lane approaching the round about at a "normal" speed. When we're about 100m from the roundabout I can see a static car in the left lane with Foreign plates and no traffic on the roundabout. It's instantly obvious to me that this car will very probably want to use the M20 and is simply in the wrong lane. However, even though the foreign car pulls away 5m or so before the Range Rover gets there the RR man decides that, rather than just hang back a second and let the obviously confused foriegn driver go, he'll assert his right of way and effectively cut-up the inside nearly causing an accident. Now, again, rather than a toot of the horn Mr RR (who has clearly been eating steroids like they're skittles) gets out and spends about a minute screaming at the poor car driver in an incandesent rage. Then he hops back in his RR (after delaying everyone during his rage)and wheel spins off.

• *the aftermarth*** - He's raging for the rest of the morning, the foreign driver/family are terrified, about 30 other cars are delayed and all for what - nothing. I'd actually slowed down expecting the RR to brake and let the car go around first and couldn't believe the attitude of "it's my right of way so I'll potentially cause an accident rather than give way".

I see this and other amazing things daily in Kent which, to be utterly blunt, has the highest percentage of poor drivers I've seen in the UK having lived all over in the past 20 years (moved every 2-3 years- Scotland to Cornwall and all between).

A noble effort to end the handbags at dawn going on about the motorcyclist and the car driver and which one was weird...

Your comment about the standard of driving in Kent concerns me, as I live in Cambridge where, in my humble opinion, driving standards are utterly woeful.

[ORD]

fire3500 said:

MarkRSi said:

TBH it's seems to the the norm for PH these days I was quite surprised no-one had a go at ORD when he mentioned about cars pulling out in front of him from queues, accusing him of not anticipating/mind-reading/not using the force/going too fast/should have thrown his car off the road onto a bus-stop full of children etc. etc.

Again, what's wrong with deconstructing the situation and pointing out that the car driver could have mitigated the situation by driving mindfully?

None of us, as drivers, are psychic... if we're a little more aware of what's going on around us and anticipating problems before they happen then there'd be fewer accidents, and fewer hysterical Daily Mail readers clamouring for ever more speed cameras and punitive fines, and eroding the freedoms of motoring.

I know it might be a bit boring to suggest that "accidents don't just happen" but as both a car driver and a bike rider I see so many examples of people technically following the rules but driving mindlessly...

I would argue that with good observation there are very few randoms that can surprise a driver, the person pulling out last minute might well have been on their phone, tuning the radio, doing their hair etc. before realising at the last minute that they're in the wrong lane, the biker might have been coming along quickly trying to undertake... and if you're watching other motorists with deep suspicion the whole time then you see them, off in their own worlds or chancing their arm, and you have an opportunity to decide how to handle that.

Presumably, the motorist should use one set of eyes to check the driver in front but in another lane isnt checking his phone, another set of eyes to watch for lunatic bikers overtaking on both sides, a third set of eyes to keep an eye on the car in front, another set of eyes on the pedestrians nearby, etc etc.

Counsel of perfection is one thing, but a lot of the comments on here are just lunacy.

[DrTre]

fire3500 said:

I'm at a loss here...

I'm not surprised, you've invented two internal monologues for the two people involved justifying what you think might have happened (and bizarrely contrived to make the decision of the car driver to proceed exactly as would reasonably be expected a fault inducing contributing factor to the incident), closing speeds that seem to change at will, timings of events such that they can only be one particular way that supports your point of view and a driver who can only be Marty Feldman given he's looking both to the left and right at the same time while actually not looking properly in either direction at all.

All of this based on a few words from the op that unarguably paint the biker to be a cock.

I've not called you a knob, I actually do get where you're coming from but you've filled in a HELL of a lot of detail on a situation that, as described, was pretty clear cut in the context of this thread.

[kowalski655]

Yesterday on the busy M8 through Glasgow. I see a biker a few cars back in L3,tailgating & looking like he was trying to filter between the car in L3 & the central reservation! The cars behind pull off & he gets up close to me,flashing his lights for me to get out of his way,despite me overtaking a car in L2 and doing just over the speed limit(honest officer )
I pull in and he roars past,pointing to L2 as if I had no right to be in HIS lane! He got the coffee beans symbol as he roared off,weaving across all lanes as he did so.Knob!

[Hackney]

fire3500 said:

Hackney said:

So, someone behind you, in a different lane - the wrong lane actually - passes you on as you join a roundabout, changes lanes right in front of you and it's *your* fault? Tell me where that's in "the book"

You seem to be suggesting that if you see a motorbike you should immediately stop until the motorcyclist has done whatever he needs to do before proceeding. "I wasn't expecting him to do that" could mean, nearly get himself killed!

No I don't... I am suggesting that in the hierarchy of vulnerability a bike is more vulnerable than a car (just as a bicycle is more vulnerable than a motorbike and a pedestrian is more vulnerable than a bicycle), and that accordingly the bike rider shouldn't make dick-moves that put him/herself at risk and the car driver COULD make an effort to see and accommodate the more vulnerable road user in his/her plans, and this reduces the risk of a collision.

Courtesy is ultimately what it comes down to, something there's not enough of on the roads...

Based on the incident as described, the motorcyclist needs to consider his own vulnerability before riding like a tt and there is nothing to suggest the driver was discourteous.

If you continue to defend the biker because of some sort of biker's club code you think you're upholding you run the risk of looking deluded or foolish.

[silverfoxcc]

The Road sign planners at the revised junction of the A329(M) and the M4
They have made the A329(M) entry points from the M4 ( both ways) so there is a dedicated lane now and the A329(M) is one lane between the M4 exit points and the M4 entry points
There are lane markings of sorts starting with the normal middle lane dashes which change to thicker ones the LH lane is for the M4 East and West and the RH lane for the A329(M)
About 50 metres from the northbound M4 lane on the A329(M) coming to a halt the is just one small yellow side of road sign showing the lane dedications.
So what happens A Transit van in LH lane who hasnt noticed this suddenly puts on his anchors in LH lane and cuts across to RH lane

This situation is going to happen until Sally traffic comes on R2 advising of a fatal.
It really needs humugous signs 200m before these lane marking changes to say GET IN LANE LH lane M4 BOTH WAYS or EAST AND WEST and RH LANE READING (going north on the A329(M) and BRACKNELL A329(M) south

They might well be the same ones who have designed oe of the best death traps i have seen in many a year at the redesigned Coppid Beech Raounabout at the bottom of the A329(M) if you ar heading to Wokingham along the A329 look at the LH sid verge. IT is about 2ft wide with a 10ft drop into a gully, beautifully landscaped as well. One day someone is going to overcook it and Sally traffic will have another reoprt.
How are these imbeciles allowed out of the secure unit to think these up??????

also posted in Thames Valley Thread i am that annoyed

[Blown2CV]

silverfoxcc said:

The Road sign planners at the revised junction of the A329(M) and the M4
They have made the A329(M) entry points from the M4 ( both ways) so there is a dedicated lane now and the A329(M) is one lane between the M4 exit points and the M4 entry points
There are lane markings of sorts starting with the normal middle lane dashes which change to thicker ones the LH lane is for the M4 East and West and the RH lane for the A329(M)
About 50 metres from the northbound M4 lane on the A329(M) coming to a halt the is just one small yellow side of road sign showing the lane dedications.
So what happens A Transit van in LH lane who hasnt noticed this suddenly puts on his anchors in LH lane and cuts across to RH lane

This situation is going to happen until Sally traffic comes on R2 advising of a fatal.
It really needs humugous signs 200m before these lane marking changes to say GET IN LANE LH lane M4 BOTH WAYS or EAST AND WEST and RH LANE READING (going north on the A329(M) and BRACKNELL A329(M) south

They might well be the same ones who have designed oe of the best death traps i have seen in many a year at the redesigned Coppid Beech Raounabout at the bottom of the A329(M) if you ar heading to Wokingham along the A329 look at the LH sid verge. IT is about 2ft wide with a 10ft drop into a gully, beautifully landscaped as well. One day someone is going to overcook it and Sally traffic will have another reoprt.
How are these imbeciles allowed out of the secure unit to think these up??????

also posted in Thames Valley Thread i am that annoyed

TSDR

[Flibble]

fire3500 said:

Not explicitly but implicitly.

The car driver was moving towards the roundabout and the bike moved from being visible in the side mirror to being in front of the car, that implies that the bike was going faster than the car, no? Could that not have been observed? Is that me being a knob, suggesting that the car driver might have seen this bike, seen it accelerate from being at least level with the passenger door, if not further behind, and observed it move in front of his own car?

I'm at a loss here...

So in summary the biker was acting like a knob and you need to stop digging. Right, that should clear that up.

[TankRizzo]

fire3500 said:

Presumably your first experience with one of these "motorcycle" things? Perhaps you could have been looking where you're already driving and preparing to give way to the right, rather than assuming you know what's happening around you and trying to avoid stopping to give way? Were you doing what the biker may have expected YOU to do at a roundabout, this being to slow down for the give way, or were you maintaining your previous speed, meaning that perhaps HIS assumption that you'd slow down was misplaced?

Based on how you have described the situation, I'd say you were both in the wrong... but you'll be unlikely to agree. I'd say his lane discipline and observation skill was poor, your observation and anticipation skills were poor.

Edited by fire3500 on account of his own piss-poor grammar on Monday 12th October 00:29

Edited by fire3500 on Monday 12th October 00:30

Everybody has already said all that needs to be said about this post. Jog on.

[TankRizzo]

fire3500 said:

Not explicitly but implicitly.

The car driver was moving towards the roundabout and the bike moved from being visible in the side mirror to being in front of the car, that implies that the bike was going faster than the car, no? Could that not have been observed? Is that me being a knob, suggesting that the car driver might have seen this bike, seen it accelerate from being at least level with the passenger door, if not further behind, and observed it move in front of his own car?

I'm at a loss here...

What the bloody hell are you dribbling about?

The guy pulled a ridiculous manoeuvre and cut across me from the wrong lane. I had "observed" him in my side mirror and "observed" that he was in the filter lane turning left, only for him to cut across the front of me at the last minute, from the wrong lane, when it was clear my attention would have been on traffic coming from the roundabout to my right. I fail to see how I am at fault in any way.

You are either trolling or are some sort of one-eyed motorcyclist so I shan't indulge you any further.

[fire3500]

Hackney said:

Based on the incident as described, the motorcyclist needs to consider his own vulnerability before riding like a tt and there is nothing to suggest the driver was discourteous.

If you continue to defend the biker because of some sort of biker's club code you think you're upholding you run the risk of looking deluded or foolish.

See term: Dick Move.

[fire3500]

Flibble said:

So in summary the biker was acting like a knob and you need to stop digging. Right, that should clear that up.

That makes what sense exactly?

[fire3500]

TankRizzo said:

What the bloody hell are you dribbling about?

The guy pulled a ridiculous manoeuvre and cut across me from the wrong lane. I had "observed" him in my side mirror and "observed" that he was in the filter lane turning left, only for him to cut across the front of me at the last minute, from the wrong lane, when it was clear my attention would have been on traffic coming from the roundabout to my right. I fail to see how I am at fault in any way.

You are either trolling or are some sort of one-eyed motorcyclist so I shan't indulge you any further.

Err, clearly he wasn't in the filter lane turning left, or he'd never have cut across me... I'm neither trolling nor one-eyed mate. Your observation was poor, the bike riders decisions were also poor.

Your assumptions contributed to the altercation.

[Hackney]

fire3500 said:

Err, clearly he wasn't in the filter lane turning left, or he'd never have cut across me... I'm neither trolling nor one-eyed mate. Your observation was poor, the bike riders decisions were also poor.

Your assumptions contributed to the altercation.

It's taken a couple of pages but you've gone from "blameless biker" to "bikers decisions were also poor"
Maybe by morning you'll have done the complete u-turn.


No idea what this means though.

fire3500 said:

See term: Dick Move.

[yellowjack]

"fire3500" keeps posting about observations and assumptions. All well and good, but there comes a point in every manoeuvre, every driving plan, where you have to apply the "reasonable assumption" test.

You know, the point where you are the next car to arrive at a junction, where you observe and assess the situation, and you apply the test:

Is the way ahead clear? And can I REASONABLY assume that it will remain clear while I complete my manoeuvre?

In the situation described in the post that started this little spat, I see the test as having been passed. The driver knows that there is a motorcycle nearby, but that it is in a lane CLEARLY MARKED to go in another direction. Furthermore, it is REASONABLE to assume that the biker knows better than to put himself deliberately at risk. When on two wheels in slow moving traffic, it is REASONABLE to filter through toward the front of a queue. It is very UNWISE to pass the first vehicle in a queue, whose attention is (entirely REASONABLY) now mostly focused on safely joining the roundabout.

There's a roundabout local to me where I regularly turn right, from a lane clearly marked as "Right Turn Only". But the "Straight Over" lane is often queuing 20 or 30 cars back from the roundabout. So idiots (mostly on four wheels, but plenty on two) get into the right turn lane, and either push into the straight over queue OVER a hatched area bounded by solid white lines, or worse still, they proceed around the roundabout looking like they're going right, then dive across over the exit hatchings to go straight over. It causes MORE delays for EVERYONE and many's the time I've witnessed very near misses. I haven't actually witnessed an impact yet, but there is evidence of plenty of them, with trim and glass all over the place.

My point? Quit trying to spread the blame onto a driver who, if he were to wait until there was no remote possibility of conflict with a vehicle in the left lane, would never be able to enter the roundabout at busy times. The motorcyclist's attention would no doubt be focused on entering the roundabout (unsafely, from the wrong lane) at that point. Why would he (or she, even) expect the driver's attention to be directed anywhere else?

Now can we please...

___IT___