Driver Cyclist arguement with a brilliant ending NSFW or kids

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

Look at the wing mirror and stop being willyfully thick.

fyp

The wing mirror in relation to what?

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

fyp

The wing mirror in relation to what?

The cyclist, you muppet.

Do you know what thread you're in?

Eamonnator

I enjoyed this thread.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

The cyclist, you muppet.

Do you know what thread you're in?

I cant see any cyclist in that photo, so I cant tell where he is in relation to the mirror. Talking of muppets, if you'd actually read all of my posts in the thread you may have picked up that I was making the point that there is NO WAY to tell how close the car was to the cyclist, all of my additional posts in answer to others have been pure sarcasm, which some people fail to see......

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

I cant see any cyclist in that photo, so I cant tell where he is in relation to the mirror. Talking of muppets, if you'd actually read all of my posts in the thread you may have picked up that I was making the point that there is NO WAY to tell how close the car was to the cyclist, all of my additional posts in answer to others have been pure sarcasm, which some people fail to see......

Oh I see it... I just wonder why you've nothing better to do on a bank holiday than goad people who are actually trying to have a discussion.

Sad.

RainyDay

Shane Fitz wrote: »

There is no reason why 2 civilised adults behaving civilly toward each other can't have an adult discussion..... You really need that spelled out for you? ?

I don't want to go round in circles, but didn't you suggest earlier today that I had to explain to you why it was appropriate for one adult to talk to another adult in such circumstances?

Shane Fitz wrote: »

We aren't discussing any adult, we're discussing this particular video

Indeed, and again, I haven't heard any reason why the cyclist should have a civil discussion with the person who just put their safety at risk through dangerous driving.

Shane Fitz wrote: »

I'm pretty sure, as are you, that the cyclist did pursue the motorist for the sole purpose of expressing himself.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not telepathic, so who knows/

WillyFXP wrote: »

Of course I can see the difference between the two photos, one clearly shows the cyclist in relation to the car, one shows the side of a car giving no reference to it's position in relation to the cyclist, simples.

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps I need to spell it out. The photo of the incident was taken by a camera attached to the bike, so it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car. And it shows that it is nothing like the distance required by the Highway Code.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

Oh I see it... I just wonder why you've nothing better to do on a bank holiday than goad people who are actually trying to have a discussion.

Sad.

Your "discussion" consists of calling people "thick" and "muppet". If you feel goaded by my simple statement of facts, I apologise deeply (but dont really mean it).

WillyFXP

RainyDay wrote: »

it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car.

No, it doesn't.

RainyDay

WillyFXP wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

That's kinda how cameras work.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't want to go round in circles, but didn't you suggest earlier today that I had to explain to you why it was appropriate for one adult to talk to another adult in such circumstances?

Indeed, and again, I haven't heard any reason why the cyclist should have a civil discussion with the person who just put their safety at risk through dangerous driving.


Maybe, maybe not. I'm not telepathic, so who knows/

I thought it was fairly obvious, but perhaps I need to spell it out. The photo of the incident was taken by a camera attached to the bike, so it shows the distance between the bike/camera and the car. And it shows that it is nothing like the distance required by the Highway Code.

2 wrongs dont make a right.
going by your posts you ARE telepathic.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

2 wrongs dont make a right.

I really don't understand your point. What is this in response to?

Darkglasses

Ok, this thread is circling the drain and I'm not interested in cleaning it up indefinitely. Drop the bickering or I'm locking this one up.

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

Your "discussion" consists of calling people "thick" and "muppet". If you feel goaded by my simple statement of facts, I apologise deeply (but dont really mean it).

You're getting the order of cause and effect mixed up. My argument is that they're both in the wrong but the driver acted on his prejudices.

Then you come along "wha driver I don't see him" "what cyclist I don't see him" "wha wing mirror I don't see it"; because again, you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

WillyFXP

Wright wrote: »

You're getting the order of cause and effect mixed up. My argument is that they're both in the wrong but the driver acted on his prejudices.

Then you come along "wha driver I don't see him" "what cyclist I don't see him" "wha wing mirror I don't see it"; because again, you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

Go you!

Darkglasses

Wright wrote: »

you've nothing better to do with your bank holiday than irritate people having a discussion.

Again; SAD.

See warning above. Stay out of this thread now, thank you.

Darkglasses

WillyFXP wrote: »

Go you!

See warning above. Stay out of this thread now, thank you.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

I really don't understand your point. What is this in response to?

Have you never heard that saying.
If the cyclist felt he was wronged in some way, let him go to the proper authorities, not chase after the car and put other road users in danger by his distracting of a quite obvious mentally unwell motorist.
the cyclist one day will chase the wrong car.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

Bro, if you continue to harp on I may just call you a lyre.

Bravo. Take a "bow".

(I wish I'd posted that about ten hours and three pages ago.)

KingBrian2

That video is despicable both sides played their part in aggravating the situation.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

If the cyclist felt he was wronged in some way, let him go to the proper authorities

For the 5th time, the UK police and the Gardai would do absolutely nothing about a close pass like this.

QuinDixie wrote: »

put other road users in danger by his distracting of a quite obvious mentally unwell motorist.

There is no sign of any issue with the driver's mental health. He's just a bigoted Daily Mail reading dick. But regardless, it's difficult to expect a cyclist or anyone to do a mental health assessment of someone on the street.

QuinDixie wrote: »

the cyclist one day will chase the wrong car.

Funny how the warnings are always for the cyclist. Maybe one day the driver will close-pass the wrong cyclist?

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

StevieGriff

John_Rambo wrote: »

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

No. Anyone who thinks 12 inches is enough room for an overtake needs to experience how frightening it is for that to happen at speed.
In regards to the video, watched it without audio but it was fairly stupid for the cyclist to follow the car, that's just asking for trouble.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

For the 5th time, the UK police and the Gardai would do absolutely nothing about a close pass like this.


There is no sign of any issue with the driver's mental health. He's just a bigoted Daily Mail reading dick. But regardless, it's difficult to expect a cyclist or anyone to do a mental health assessment of someone on the street.

Funny how the warnings are always for the cyclist. Maybe one day the driver will close-pass the wrong cyclist?

The motorist has serious anger issues, his rage is a sure sign of some mental problem.

The cyclist in fairness is not far behind him, a persecution complex at min.

Yet you take the cyclists side - interesting.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

Back off. Wait for when it's suitable to overtake. Just like you would for livestock, pedestrians, tractors and slow drivers. A trained emergency response driver wouldn't risk it, why should you?

If you overtook a cyclist on a narrow road with 12 inches to spare you'd fail your driving test.

Anyone that things 12 inches is enough room for overtaking needs to sit their driving test again. Unseasoned drivers that believe this is enough room need to be educated.

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

If I met a cyclist anywhere, I would go into a low gear but overtake and sometimes you could not leave more than 1 foot. But I do it in the right speed and so its not an issue.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one.

John_Rambo

QuinDixie wrote: »

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

No. Just wait for a suitable overtaking area. Leave lots of room and drive responsibly.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one. Take it easy, you're not in that much of a rush.

QuinDixie

John_Rambo wrote: »

No. Just wait for a suitable overtaking area. Leave lots of room and drive responsibly.

Too many excitable road users out there, dont be one. Take it easy, you're not in that much of a rush.

is this what feels to be re-tweeted.

Cycling Dubliner

IMO they are both toss-pots. Cyclist kept winding up the driver when he could have left it be and very nearly got what he deserved.

But I won't lie in saying that I laughed when the driver face planted the road.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

The motorist has serious anger issues, his rage is a sure sign of some mental problem.

Is everyone with rage now considered to have a 'mental problem'? The Courts are full of people who have shown similar 'rage', but I don't think they all get away with playing the 'mental problem' card.

The guy has rage mainly because (similar to a few posters here on the thread), he can't comprehend the possibility that a cyclist could correct a driver on his driving. He rattles out all the old Daily Mail cliches about the size of the bike and insurance, which have no relevance to the issue at all. When he realizes that the cyclist has him on camera, so he's going either get reported to the cops or get made a dick of online, he makes a fairly calculated decision that it is in his best interests to get the camera back.

QuinDixie wrote: »

The cyclist in fairness is not far behind him, a persecution complex at min.

It's a fairly typical tactic in bullying cases to blame the bully for having the temerity to stand up for themselves. They were provoking them, they were asking for it, combined with thinly veiled threats of or exhortations to violence on the thread;

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Nearly knocked a person crossing the road when chasing the car, a good thumping is what he would want, knock the smart Alec out of him.

and

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe some ol' fashioned lovin' called for here..........though whether the GoPro camera would be the right shape for the kind of lovin' needed is a whole other question. :eek:

It's not a persecution complex. It is persecution, based on his choice of mode of transport.

QuinDixie wrote: »

Yet you take the cyclists side - interesting.

The cyclist did nothing wrong. The driver threatened his safety, then threatened to kill him, then attempted to assault him and steal his property.

And you don't take his side?

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

where I live the country roads very narrow, do you wish for me to never overtake a cyclist or a pedestrian.

What do you do when you come across a tractor on these very narrow country roads?

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

What do you do when you come across a tractor on these very narrow country roads?

the dubs eh. A dub once asked me when do you milk the bull. :pac:

the cyclist in that video would not want to come to Ireland on a cycling hol.
He would have a mental breakdown somewhere between tipp and kerry, last seen shouting out number plates.

As for the motorist, as punishment for his behaviour he should be made go on the aforementioned hols with the cyclist.

What a TV show that would make.
Ciao.