Jerk in a Merc (Reg T9 TSK) has a dispute with cyclist
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
DoubleD said:
What that picture does show is the lack of a decent gap in front of the Merc to slot into.
Big enough for a bike, small enough to irritate the Merc driver!saaby93 said:
wemorgan said:
For what it's worth I've seen Police motorbikes slot in to similar gaps. Filtering in London is very common and legal.
I'd been thinking that too. If it was all liveried up on a blue light run I dont suppose the thread would exist.ZX10R NIN said:
People shut the gaps on people all the time whether it's a car/motorbike/cyclist overtaking a car/cyclist if someone want to be bad minded they will, but the onus is on the person overtaking not the person they're passing.
In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
HighlightedIn this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using...
Number 168
HOWEVER.
Cyclist put HIS life in Danger unnecessarily
Merc Driver put SOMEONE elses life in Danger unnecessarily
Both people were knobs. Problem is that the militant types who favour one form of transport over the other (Personally I like both) will use this as examples of why the other party must be banned from the road.
Hardly sensible is it
DonkeyApple said:
ZX10R NIN said:
People shut the gaps on people all the time whether it's a car/motorbike/cyclist overtaking a car/cyclist if someone want to be bad minded they will, but the onus is on the person overtaking not the person they're passing.
In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
There are many things the cyclist should have done. However none are relevant to whether it is acceptable or right for a driver to close a gap on a fool. It takes a stupid/dangerous situation and escalates it and that is absolutely moronic. In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
The driver is not judge dredd or judge judy. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for a driver to close a gap in an overtaker regardless of how moronic the manoeuvre is. In fact it is all too obvious that the more moronic the manoevre the more dangerous the act of blocking becomes.
That's why it is genuinely irrelevant what the cyclist has done, what laws have been broken, what is right or wrong. The sole onus of the Merc driver is to not only not exacerbate the cluster f
k that is looming but to act in the correct way to defuse and prevent it. That is what being a civilised and intelligent human is about. The Merc driver is a small minded cretin and 100% in the wrong. And so is the cyclist. What it should have been titled was "When two t
ts meet"ZX10R NIN said:
DonkeyApple said:
ZX10R NIN said:
People shut the gaps on people all the time whether it's a car/motorbike/cyclist overtaking a car/cyclist if someone want to be bad minded they will, but the onus is on the person overtaking not the person they're passing.
In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
There are many things the cyclist should have done. However none are relevant to whether it is acceptable or right for a driver to close a gap on a fool. It takes a stupid/dangerous situation and escalates it and that is absolutely moronic. In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
The driver is not judge dredd or judge judy. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for a driver to close a gap in an overtaker regardless of how moronic the manoeuvre is. In fact it is all too obvious that the more moronic the manoevre the more dangerous the act of blocking becomes.
That's why it is genuinely irrelevant what the cyclist has done, what laws have been broken, what is right or wrong. The sole onus of the Merc driver is to not only not exacerbate the cluster f
k that is looming but to act in the correct way to defuse and prevent it. That is what being a civilised and intelligent human is about. The Merc driver is a small minded cretin and 100% in the wrong. And so is the cyclist. What it should have been titled was "When two t
ts meet"Johnnytheboy said:
ZX10R NIN said:
DonkeyApple said:
ZX10R NIN said:
People shut the gaps on people all the time whether it's a car/motorbike/cyclist overtaking a car/cyclist if someone want to be bad minded they will, but the onus is on the person overtaking not the person they're passing.
In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
There are many things the cyclist should have done. However none are relevant to whether it is acceptable or right for a driver to close a gap on a fool. It takes a stupid/dangerous situation and escalates it and that is absolutely moronic. In this case the cyclist should have dropped back until he could execute the overtake again this time expecting the car to speed up.
The driver is not judge dredd or judge judy. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for a driver to close a gap in an overtaker regardless of how moronic the manoeuvre is. In fact it is all too obvious that the more moronic the manoevre the more dangerous the act of blocking becomes.
That's why it is genuinely irrelevant what the cyclist has done, what laws have been broken, what is right or wrong. The sole onus of the Merc driver is to not only not exacerbate the cluster f
k that is looming but to act in the correct way to defuse and prevent it. That is what being a civilised and intelligent human is about. The Merc driver is a small minded cretin and 100% in the wrong. And so is the cyclist. What it should have been titled was "When two t
ts meet"Both parties are 100% at fault and as said here and further back in the thread by others including myself, this is just a result of two losers crossing paths.
But the point of this tangent is that some people appear to be attempting to justify the action of the car driver based on what the cyclist did but the two are unconnected in that regard. The cyclist was wrong to attempt an overtake that wasn't there but the driver was equally wrong to make the situation more dangerous by closing the gap when he catagorically should have defused the danger by widening the gap to compensate for the error.
I'm firmly in the two idiots coming together camp.
Had the cyclist thought, "hmmm, not really enough room for this overtake.... I'll just settle for doing 18mph rather than 22mph and hang back here for a bit", there would be no issue.
Had the Merc driver thought, "hmm, this chaps being a little rude pushing past me here, I'll just lift off and let him by to have his inevitable altercation with someone else further up the road", there would be no issue.
But they didn't, they are both in the wrong, and anyone suggesting that being less wrong than the other person, somehow makes you right.... Is wrong.
Had the cyclist thought, "hmmm, not really enough room for this overtake.... I'll just settle for doing 18mph rather than 22mph and hang back here for a bit", there would be no issue.
Had the Merc driver thought, "hmm, this chaps being a little rude pushing past me here, I'll just lift off and let him by to have his inevitable altercation with someone else further up the road", there would be no issue.
But they didn't, they are both in the wrong, and anyone suggesting that being less wrong than the other person, somehow makes you right.... Is wrong.
DonkeyApple said:
People are missing the point of this little diversion from the main thread.
Both parties are 100% at fault and as said here and further back in the thread by others including myself, this is just a result of two losers crossing paths.
But the point of this tangent is that some people appear to be attempting to justify the action of the car driver based on what the cyclist did but the two are unconnected in that regard. The cyclist was wrong to attempt an overtake that wasn't there but the driver was equally wrong to make the situation more dangerous by closing the gap when he catagorically should have defused the danger by widening the gap to compensate for the error.
I agree, both knobs.Both parties are 100% at fault and as said here and further back in the thread by others including myself, this is just a result of two losers crossing paths.
But the point of this tangent is that some people appear to be attempting to justify the action of the car driver based on what the cyclist did but the two are unconnected in that regard. The cyclist was wrong to attempt an overtake that wasn't there but the driver was equally wrong to make the situation more dangerous by closing the gap when he catagorically should have defused the danger by widening the gap to compensate for the error.
I'm sure you'd post the same if it was a car overtaking a bike too.
Johnnytheboy said:
I agree, both knobs.
I'm sure you'd post the same if it was a car overtaking a bike too.
?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!I'm sure you'd post the same if it was a car overtaking a bike too.
It's all written in very easy to understand English.
It's itrelevant what the mode of transport is. The actions of one are not justified by the actions of another. It is not complicated.
DonkeyApple said:
?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's all written in very easy to understand English.
It's itrelevant what the mode of transport is. The actions of one are not justified by the actions of another. It is not complicated.
So that's a yes, right? It's all written in very easy to understand English.
It's itrelevant what the mode of transport is. The actions of one are not justified by the actions of another. It is not complicated.
Meanwhile, on the Mash today:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/helmet-...
Johnnytheboy said:
I agree, both knobs.
100% this ^^^^^The cyclist was silly for making the borderline unsafe moves he did and then getting all OTT about the Merc driver while the Merc driver (sadly like many Merc drivers) is a self righteous idiot who seemed more than happy to endanger someone else's life which is wrong regardless of what the other party has done wrong!
cb1965 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I agree, both knobs.
100% this ^^^^^The cyclist was silly for making the borderline unsafe moves he did and then getting all OTT about the Merc driver while the Merc driver (sadly like many Merc drivers) is a self righteous idiot who seemed more than happy to endanger someone else's life which is wrong regardless of what the other party has done wrong!
irocfan said:
one thought occurred however - we're all chastising the Merc knob for being, well, a knob. There is a possibility that he didn't notice psychocyclist and as 20 is too slow for cruise control was just a little heavier on the gas for a split second (which does happen)...
I don't suppose he did. He was going up and down hills so he would have been varying his acceleration. The cyclist's speed and the speed of the drivers in front would have also varied without any of them consciously choosing to speed up or slow down. That would have varied the size of the gap between the two cars and the ability of the cyclist to overtake if he was on the edge of the maximum speed he was capable of. If the cyclist felt he was being endangered he could have called out without calling the Mercedes driver a f
ker and all the rest of it. Obviously the driver rose to that a little which I can understand in the heat of the moment even if one shouldn't. cb1965 said:
100% this ^^^^^
The cyclist was silly for making the borderline unsafe moves he did and then getting all OTT about the Merc driver while the Merc driver (sadly like many Merc drivers) is a self righteous idiot who seemed more than happy to endanger someone else's life which is wrong regardless of what the other party has done wrong!
How dare you make such general accusations about Merc drivers. The cyclist was silly for making the borderline unsafe moves he did and then getting all OTT about the Merc driver while the Merc driver (sadly like many Merc drivers) is a self righteous idiot who seemed more than happy to endanger someone else's life which is wrong regardless of what the other party has done wrong!
cb1965 said:
ZX10R NIN said:
How dare you make such general accusations about Merc drivers.
It seems to be true though, but thankfully it doesn't seem to extend to the AMG end of the range!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff