One single thing that makes you think "knob" Vol 4
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Hmmm? I'm not going to defend her idiocy, but if she's learning by example out on the roads, it's very common for car drivers to pull the same "cut in front and turn left" stunt, only the cyclist is usually going straight ahead. Or the arse-dribbler in a BMW a few weeks ago who overtook me while I was in a right turn filter lane, committed to a right turn. So the cyclist in this case is an idiot, but there are far bigger idiots/attitude problems out there driving cars dangerously around other road users. After all, if it had gone wrong, she would have hurt no-one but herself.
Totally agree, but she’s still a Knobette for doing what she did.993kimbo said:
Totally agree, but she’s still a Knobette for doing what she did.
Definitely.Today's knob? A van driver on a New Forest road. He came hurtling around a bend behind me, and as I turned my head to check behind me in order to make a right turn, he locked up his brakes with the accompanying squeal of tyres on tarmac. Then he passed me glacially slowly (I'm presuming he was labouring in too high a gear) and had a right pop at me.
Open letter to fat van man: Dude, what is your issue? If you can't spot a cyclist on an open road, and make a plan to either pass safely or bide your time for a better opportunity, the issue lies with you. And if/when you make a mistake, take it on the chin and learn from it, instead of lobbing your toys out of the pram like a giant man-baby. Oh, and try the Highway Code. I particularly like "Rule 167. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road".
FYI I might have moved slightly to my right as I carried out my shoulder check prior to making a right turn signal, but it was only an inch or two from my original line, and definitely not enough to have made the difference between a safe overtake and no overtake. The pass was NEVER on as there was oncoming traffic and a junction on the right. Lucky for me I hadn't begun to move to the centre of the road in preparation for the turn really. In the end I was forced to pull over on the left to make my right turn after this fat clown blocked the right turn by driving slowly alongside me. F
king-well fk off fatso. If you were in such a hurry, why not just suck up your error and accelerate back up to your previous speed ASP? Instead of matching my speed alongside me, willy-waving and gobbing off from the safety of a locked metal box.https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 21st August 23:19
I’ve recently taken to driving a bit slower as it is less stressful worrying about the fuzz, better on fuel, increases the range of the car, I have grown up a bit etc.
I used to drive in at 75-85 keeping up with traffic using the lanes as required and not lane hogging. Now I stick more on the inside where I do more like 60-65. I have never experienced dangerous tailgating or bullying from lorries before but it’s pretty frequent, disgusting and intimidating
I used to drive in at 75-85 keeping up with traffic using the lanes as required and not lane hogging. Now I stick more on the inside where I do more like 60-65. I have never experienced dangerous tailgating or bullying from lorries before but it’s pretty frequent, disgusting and intimidating
yellowjack said:
993kimbo said:
Totally agree, but she’s still a Knobette for doing what she did.
Definitely.Today's knob? A van driver on a New Forest road. He came hurtling around a bend behind me, and as I turned my head to check behind me in order to make a right turn, he locked up his brakes with the accompanying squeal of tyres on tarmac. Then he passed me glacially slowly (I'm presuming he was labouring in too high a gear) and had a right pop at me.
Open letter to fat van man: Dude, what is your issue? If you can't spot a cyclist on an open road, and make a plan to either pass safely or bide your time for a better opportunity, the issue lies with you. And if/when you make a mistake, take it on the chin and learn from it, instead of lobbing your toys out of the pram like a giant man-baby. Oh, and try the Highway Code. I particularly like "Rule 167. DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road".
FYI I might have moved slightly to my right as I carried out my shoulder check prior to making a right turn signal, but it was only an inch or two from my original line, and definitely not enough to have made the difference between a safe overtake and no overtake. The pass was NEVER on as there was oncoming traffic and a junction on the right. Lucky for me I hadn't begun to move to the centre of the road in preparation for the turn really. In the end I was forced to pull over on the left to make my right turn after this fat clown blocked the right turn by driving slowly alongside me. F
king-well fk off fatso. If you were in such a hurry, why not just suck up your error and accelerate back up to your previous speed ASP? Instead of matching my speed alongside me, willy-waving and gobbing off from the safety of a locked metal box.https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 21st August 23:19
Yellowjacket not aimed at you it the term Open Letter has knobdom all over it.
Every time it is used, the knobometer is yanked all the way to 11.
It isn’t an open letter, it’s a passive aggressive tactic that’s used tactically to force the recipient to either cow tail to the point or be called out for a perceived failing.
Every time it is used, the knobometer is yanked all the way to 11.
It isn’t an open letter, it’s a passive aggressive tactic that’s used tactically to force the recipient to either cow tail to the point or be called out for a perceived failing.
jakesmith said:
I’ve recently taken to driving a bit slower as it is less stressful worrying about the fuzz, better on fuel, increases the range of the car, I have grown up a bit etc.
I used to drive in at 75-85 keeping up with traffic using the lanes as required and not lane hogging. Now I stick more on the inside where I do more like 60-65. I have never experienced dangerous tailgating or bullying from lorries before but it’s pretty frequent, disgusting and intimidating
Welcome to the club, smithy.I used to drive in at 75-85 keeping up with traffic using the lanes as required and not lane hogging. Now I stick more on the inside where I do more like 60-65. I have never experienced dangerous tailgating or bullying from lorries before but it’s pretty frequent, disgusting and intimidating
<----slower 
Blown2CV said:
if we're going to start quoting highway code here, is 'mirror-signal-manoeuvre' not something you really need to be thinking about? For bikes, look, then signal, then take action? If you knew he was right behind you and you were coming up to a turn, why not signal early to make it clear as to your intention?
That's the whole point though. I was checking back (first time) to see that it was correct to signal. If a car is closing on me, and can pass before the junction, I will hold off on my signal, ease back on my speed, and let the car past, then start the "mirror"/signal/manoeuvre bit over again. I won't deliberately swing out into the middle to unnecessarily delay a driver, nor risk my own safety if staying left is the better option. Plus I check, check again, signal, then make a final check before changing my road position.But this idiot seems to have been under the impression that he could just hurtle around the countryside, and when happening upon a cyclist just swing out to overtake regardless of what was going on with oncoming traffic. Only he swiftly backed out of his overtake when faced with oncoming vehicles, hence screeching to a halt behind me. When oncoming traffic cleared, he swung out as I made my shoulder check but instead of swiftly passing me and going about his business, he drove slowly alongside of me to (seemingly deliberately) prevent me from turning right. If he'd driven away like any normal person, I'd have smoothly turned right behind his rapidly disappearing van.
Mostly, when around drivers with a modicum of ability, it isn't even necessary to make a turn signal, because the shoulder checks in proximity with a junction are enough to indicate that there's a high probability that I want to turn, and intelligent drivers will hold back because they can see that my turning off this road will leave the way ahead clear for them anyway. naturally I'll signal too, even if only to confirm what they've already guessed.
There's no hard/fast rule for turning right on a bicycle either. If the oncoming traffic lane is clear, I'm likely to check, signal, and move to the middle for a swift turn. In the absence of a dedicated filter lane, if the oncoming lane is busy, I'll move to the left and stop to await a safe opportunity without stranding myself in the centre and risking getting taken out by traffic passing to me left. Occasionally I'll get off and walk my bike across if it's really busy. And there are one or two junctions where i'd never attempt a right turn, preferring instead to cycle to another junction where a turn is safer, or carrying on to a roundabout to come back and make a left turn instead. And situations change even at the same junction at different times of day. Eg: there's a right turn locally that can save me from climbing a hill (or at least I climb a less steep part of the same hill). At busy times, queuing traffic in both directions (and a yellow box) makes a right turn pretty simple, and relatively safe. But in traffic flowing at the speed limit, it becomes a far better option to carry on down the (nearside) cycle lane to a roundabout half a mile or so away, grit my teeth and climb the damned hill.
Using the road. Oddly enough a constantly changing, dynamic environment requiring concentration and a basic ability to assess hazards and swiftly decide on a course of action. And I'd suggest that if you're having to employ emergency braking to avoid a collision with another road user dressed in bright red and white (coincidentally the colours on most road signs) in conditions of "excellent" visibility, then there is some part of paying attention and planning ahead that you are deficient at...
yellowjack said:
Blown2CV said:
if we're going to start quoting highway code here, is 'mirror-signal-manoeuvre' not something you really need to be thinking about? For bikes, look, then signal, then take action? If you knew he was right behind you and you were coming up to a turn, why not signal early to make it clear as to your intention?
That's the whole point though. I was checking back (first time) to see that it was correct to signal. If a car is closing on me, and can pass before the junction, I will hold off on my signal, ease back on my speed, and let the car past, then start the "mirror"/signal/manoeuvre bit over again. I won't deliberately swing out into the middle to unnecessarily delay a driver, nor risk my own safety if staying left is the better option. Plus I check, check again, signal, then make a final check before changing my road position.But this idiot seems to have been under the impression that he could just hurtle around the countryside, and when happening upon a cyclist just swing out to overtake regardless of what was going on with oncoming traffic. Only he swiftly backed out of his overtake when faced with oncoming vehicles, hence screeching to a halt behind me. When oncoming traffic cleared, he swung out as I made my shoulder check but instead of swiftly passing me and going about his business, he drove slowly alongside of me to (seemingly deliberately) prevent me from turning right. If he'd driven away like any normal person, I'd have smoothly turned right behind his rapidly disappearing van.
Mostly, when around drivers with a modicum of ability, it isn't even necessary to make a turn signal, because the shoulder checks in proximity with a junction are enough to indicate that there's a high probability that I want to turn, and intelligent drivers will hold back because they can see that my turning off this road will leave the way ahead clear for them anyway. naturally I'll signal too, even if only to confirm what they've already guessed.
There's no hard/fast rule for turning right on a bicycle either. If the oncoming traffic lane is clear, I'm likely to check, signal, and move to the middle for a swift turn. In the absence of a dedicated filter lane, if the oncoming lane is busy, I'll move to the left and stop to await a safe opportunity without stranding myself in the centre and risking getting taken out by traffic passing to me left. Occasionally I'll get off and walk my bike across if it's really busy. And there are one or two junctions where i'd never attempt a right turn, preferring instead to cycle to another junction where a turn is safer, or carrying on to a roundabout to come back and make a left turn instead. And situations change even at the same junction at different times of day. Eg: there's a right turn locally that can save me from climbing a hill (or at least I climb a less steep part of the same hill). At busy times, queuing traffic in both directions (and a yellow box) makes a right turn pretty simple, and relatively safe. But in traffic flowing at the speed limit, it becomes a far better option to carry on down the (nearside) cycle lane to a roundabout half a mile or so away, grit my teeth and climb the damned hill.
Using the road. Oddly enough a constantly changing, dynamic environment requiring concentration and a basic ability to assess hazards and swiftly decide on a course of action. And I'd suggest that if you're having to employ emergency braking to avoid a collision with another road user dressed in bright red and white (coincidentally the colours on most road signs) in conditions of "excellent" visibility, then there is some part of paying attention and planning ahead that you are deficient at...
Blown2CV said:
No, you said you moved line before you signalled. Not fully, but still moved. Also if you had signalled the generally accepted assumption of course would be that he wouldn't have attempted to overtake you - no? Or at least he could clearly see your intention. I dunno about the oncoming traffic, of course i was not there.
He said he might possibly have moved an inch as he checked over his shoulder. Vehicles don't generally travel in 100% straight lines and some deviation is expected.I think you're being obtuse. He has done nothing even remotely wrong and the van driver is a bellend.
Dagnir said:
Blown2CV said:
No, you said you moved line before you signalled. Not fully, but still moved. Also if you had signalled the generally accepted assumption of course would be that he wouldn't have attempted to overtake you - no? Or at least he could clearly see your intention. I dunno about the oncoming traffic, of course i was not there.
He said he might possibly have moved an inch as he checked over his shoulder. Vehicles don't generally travel in 100% straight lines and some deviation is expected.I think you're being obtuse. He has done nothing even remotely wrong and the van driver is a bellend.
yellowjack said:
Mandalore said:
993kimbo said:
Sitting at the lights today, indicating Left.
Lights go green, I move off, girl on a cycle wearing headphones and holding phone in left hand overtakes me on my right, cuts across me and turns left.
Female knob.
Hmm!!Lights go green, I move off, girl on a cycle wearing headphones and holding phone in left hand overtakes me on my right, cuts across me and turns left.
Female knob.
Tough one.
But, someone will be round to insist that it was all your fault, and she is perfectly entitled to be an idiot.
^^^^ Like this you mean?
I think you're being obtuse. He has done nothing even remotely wrong and the van driver is a bellend.It's PH. People just seemingly come on here when they are angry to argue with strangers about explained scenarios they were not involved in and never saw.
Rich Boy Spanner said:
Dagnir said:
Blown2CV said:
No, you said you moved line before you signalled. Not fully, but still moved. Also if you had signalled the generally accepted assumption of course would be that he wouldn't have attempted to overtake you - no? Or at least he could clearly see your intention. I dunno about the oncoming traffic, of course i was not there.
He said he might possibly have moved an inch as he checked over his shoulder. Vehicles don't generally travel in 100% straight lines and some deviation is expected.I think you're being obtuse. He has done nothing even remotely wrong and the van driver is a bellend.
Rich Boy Spanner said:
Dagnir said:
Blown2CV said:
No, you said you moved line before you signalled. Not fully, but still moved. Also if you had signalled the generally accepted assumption of course would be that he wouldn't have attempted to overtake you - no? Or at least he could clearly see your intention. I dunno about the oncoming traffic, of course i was not there.
He said he might possibly have moved an inch as he checked over his shoulder. Vehicles don't generally travel in 100% straight lines and some deviation is expected.I think you're being obtuse. He has done nothing even remotely wrong and the van driver is a bellend.
Blown2CV said:
not at all, but there is nearly always 2 sides to the story and we only ever get one. I reckon in the majority of cases where someone claims they have been the victim of aggression, they have had some part to play in bringing that about, and they either want to just not mention it, or didn't even realise. It's not about being angry, it's more about saying "yea but what really happened"
Oh aye, totally agree about the two sides and also the inevitable bias but if you're going to wade in, one should be at the very least, factually correct 
Dagnir said:
Blown2CV said:
not at all, but there is nearly always 2 sides to the story and we only ever get one. I reckon in the majority of cases where someone claims they have been the victim of aggression, they have had some part to play in bringing that about, and they either want to just not mention it, or didn't even realise. It's not about being angry, it's more about saying "yea but what really happened"
Oh aye, totally agree about the two sides and also the inevitable bias but if you're going to wade in, one should be at the very least, factually correct t? Cyclist makes himself sound like he was just carrying on minding his own business and a nasty van man was right up his arse, did a failed overtake and then gave him st, all whilst he was just there sticking to the rules of the road. It is just highly unlikely to have happened like that. I propose that the cyclist took action, which it sounds like it resulted in the van driver perceiving that he has no choice but to abort the overtake, whether the overtake was sensible or not.... and hasn't really put that bit in the post because that interferes with the knob/victim narrative. The drug dealer spec Range Rover that decided to overtake 5 cars at speed, on a road with entranceways, just before a corner.
In a signed 20 speed limit.
On a very newly resurfaced road.
Kicking up stones onto not only their car, but all the cars they passed. The noise was awful.
Perhaps his bruv runs the local windscreen replacement franchise or chips away?
In a signed 20 speed limit.
On a very newly resurfaced road.
Kicking up stones onto not only their car, but all the cars they passed. The noise was awful.
Perhaps his bruv runs the local windscreen replacement franchise or chips away?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff