Near Miss of the Day 341: Close pass followed by not so seasonal greeting

PRSboy wrote:

Were I confronted by another road user who politely informed me that my driving had bothered them sufficiently that they followed me to let me know, I would be mortified and apologise, rather than being offensive.

Evidently we were all raised differently.

Even if you knew you'd done nothing wrong (not the case in this example)? I was followed a couple of weekends ago by a posh couple in a 4x4 who caught me at some lights and complained that I had delayed them making their right turn by not signalling my intention to turn left as I approached a junction; clearly my riding had bothered them sufficiently for them to follow me to let me know, but as I knew I had made not one but three clear hand signals as I approached the junction, the last only completed when I returned my hand to the bars to make the turn, I wasn't mortified and certainly didn't apologise.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Were I confronted by another road user who politely informed me that my driving had bothered them sufficiently that they followed me to let me know, I would be mortified and apologise, rather than being offensive.

Evidently we were all raised differently.

 

Even if you knew you'd done nothing wrong (not the case in this example)? I was followed a couple of weekends ago by a posh couple in a 4x4 who caught me at some lights and complained that I had delayed them making their right turn by not signalling my intention to turn left as I approached a junction; clearly my riding had bothered them sufficiently for them to follow me to let me know, but as I knew I had made not one but three clear hand signals as I approached the junction, the last only completed when I returned my hand to the bars to make the turn, I wasn't mortified and certainly didn't apologise.

Fair point... I meant alarmed or frightened another road user sufficiently for them to want to have words.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Were I confronted by another road user who politely informed me that my driving had bothered them sufficiently that they followed me to let me know, I would be mortified and apologise, rather than being offensive.

Evidently we were all raised differently.

 

Even if you knew you'd done nothing wrong (not the case in this example)? I was followed a couple of weekends ago by a posh couple in a 4x4 who caught me at some lights and complained that I had delayed them making their right turn by not signalling my intention to turn left as I approached a junction; clearly my riding had bothered them sufficiently for them to follow me to let me know, but as I knew I had made not one but three clear hand signals as I approached the junction, the last only completed when I returned my hand to the bars to make the turn, I wasn't mortified and certainly didn't apologise.

4x4 - your 'chariot' when you ascend to the highest state of self-entitlement!

Shades wrote:

Wouldn't have bothered confronting a driver over that; bit on the close side but pretty slow.  Keep going and you'd have forgotten about it; the subsequent argument would have 'wound me up' more than the close pass.  Take a more 'primary' position if the road's narrow and you don't want to be overtaken.

reading the description it sounds like there was more than one incident with this driver, a close pass when the group was moving to primary to avoid standing water and then after attempting to engage the driver, subsequent close passes before the car park encounter. Would have been better if the footage showed all of the encounter.

Philh68 wrote:

Shades wrote:

Wouldn't have bothered confronting a driver over that; bit on the close side but pretty slow.  Keep going and you'd have forgotten about it; the subsequent argument would have 'wound me up' more than the close pass.  Take a more 'primary' position if the road's narrow and you don't want to be overtaken.

reading the description it sounds like there was more than one incident with this driver, a close pass when the group was moving to primary to avoid standing water and then after attempting to engage the driver, subsequent close passes before the car park encounter. Would have been better if the footage showed all of the encounter.

Yeah I wondered about that,as by itself that '2nd' encounter,while I dispute that ride prime stops that stuff, is fairly atypical and not worth confronting anyone over imo

roadmanshaq wrote:

You can get ready to hear much more of shit like this as of this Thursday's news.

Ah yes, the resurgance of the wonderful phrase 'fuck off back to...'

To be honest, I doubt that the events of the last few days, months and years has meant that more people have become xenophobic or racist, it's just that those idiots feel far more emboldened to express it openly. It doesn't help that the leader of our nation and the 'leader of the free world' are both complicit.

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Ahhh, perhaps he's a christian showing us all how to behave in a festive christian manner. Sounds like a fine fellow judging from his comments bringing nationality into it. #onlyonaSunday

So prejudice based on nationality is bad, but based on religion is ok?

Sriracha wrote:

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

Ahhh, perhaps he's a christian showing us all how to behave in a festive christian manner. Sounds like a fine fellow judging from his comments bringing nationality into it. #onlyonaSunday

So prejudice based on nationality is bad, but based on religion is ok?

That’s not prejudice, it’s sarcasm. Christianity is about how you act towards others not the religious buildings that you attend.

Sriracha wrote:

So prejudice based on nationality is bad, but based on religion is ok?

No it's highlighting the hypocrisy.

One of Jesus's 2 great commandments: "Love thy neighbour as thyself."

from Wikipedia: Most Christian denominations consider these two commandments to be the core of correct Christian lifestyle.

Could be paraphrased as "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself".

Unfortunately too many people who go to church or claim to be Christians do not think or behave this way; some act in a particularly un-Christian manner. And that's not conjecture or n=1, it's based on growing up as the child of a clergyman, surrounded by churchgoers and 'men (and latterly women) of the cloth'. Most of them are thoroughly decent but some, well...

Simon E wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

So prejudice based on nationality is bad, but based on religion is ok?

No it's highlighting the hypocrisy.

One of Jesus's 2 great commandments: "Love thy neighbour as thyself."

from Wikipedia: Most Christian denominations consider these two commandments to be the core of correct Christian lifestyle.

Could be paraphrased as "Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself".

Unfortunately too many people who go to church or claim to be Christians do not think or behave this way; some act in a particularly un-Christian manner. And that's not conjecture or n=1, it's based on growing up as the child of a clergyman, surrounded by churchgoers and 'men (and latterly women) of the cloth'. Most of them are thoroughly decent but some, well...

I thought that the "Christian God" was somewhat prejudiced against other religions - "Worship no other gods before me" etc.

Also, I think the Christian heaven is discriminatory - if you're not a Christian, you're not getting in.

Meanwhile, Cthulhu welcomes all into his abode/stomach - no discrimination there.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I thought that the "Christian God" was somewhat prejudiced against other religions - "Worship no other gods before me" etc.

Also, I think the Christian heaven is discriminatory - if you're not a Christian, you're not getting in.

It's a standard recruitment tactic - you aren't allowed in if you don't keep up your subscription. And it's why the post-death alternative to heaven is painted as pretty awful.

Cathedrals don't get built or deep clerical pockets lined without lots of money flowing in. For a long time the C of E was the country's largest landowner, and not the most benevolent one at that. Its historical financial status is why most Rectories are significant buildings, with huge rooms, grand driveways and located in upmarket areas. Most clerics didn't mix with the poor and needy but socialised with the landed gentry and often had servants until the early/mid 20th century.

I'm pretty sure that "Worship no other gods before me" is an Old Testament line. And it doesn't say not to worship them at all, just not in preference to Yahweh/Jehovah. Multiple gods were widespread in those times.

Simon E wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I thought that the "Christian God" was somewhat prejudiced against other religions - "Worship no other gods before me" etc.

Also, I think the Christian heaven is discriminatory - if you're not a Christian, you're not getting in.

It's a standard recruitment tactic - you aren't allowed in if you don't keep up your subscription. And it's why the post-death alternative to heaven is painted as pretty awful.

Cathedrals don't get built or deep clerical pockets lined without lots of money flowing in. For a long time the C of E was the country's largest landowner, and not the most benevolent one at that. Its historical financial status is why most Rectories are significant buildings, with huge rooms, grand driveways and located in upmarket areas. Most clerics didn't mix with the poor and needy but socialised with the landed gentry and often had servants until the early/mid 20th century.

I'm pretty sure that "Worship no other gods before me" is an Old Testament line. And it doesn't say not to worship them at all, just not in preference to Yahweh/Jehovah. Multiple gods were widespread in those times.

It seems like they're trying a bit too hard.

Now with the Elder Gods, they pretty much already own all of Earth and they don't really care if we worship them or not. To my mind, it's like if ants started worshipping us - we just wouldn't care.