Near Miss of the Day 643: Police officer pulls out on cyclist

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Exactly what I'd have done too. 

Again, is this supposed to be some kind of feather in your cap? Not driving straight into the side of a police car that has forced its way out in front of you is not something to boast about. It's not an achievement and it doesn't set you above any but the most unfathomably careless and incompetent.

It also has no bearing at all on whether the Police Officer's driving was acceptable.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Exactly what I'd have done too. You need to remember though that the journey to politeness and courtesy is a long and winding road, and Rendel has only just started his first tentative steps.

I fail to see how even you, with your much-bragged-of-self-identified courtesy,* could show courtesy to someone who pulls into your path without checking or signalling - or do you stop before every parked car just in case it's occupied and the driver feels like (discourteously) pulling in front of you without check or signal? One is not psychic.

*Good manners are very like intelligence, in that those who genuinely possess them do not see the need to brag of them (indeed would see it as bad manners to do so), whereas those who do not make a great show of boasting (a very ill-mannered habit) of how courteous they are. It's definitely been my experience that clever and polite people never brag of their manners or intelligence, whilst rude and stupid ones do little else - your hero Trump being a prime case in point on both counts.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

• On the higher rungs, self-awareness grows and a sense of appreciation and community blooms within the cyclist. At this stage you begin to work in harmony with other road users and begin to cascade your altruism onto others, creating virtuous circles of courtesy and respect with those around you. In the case of the police car, a self-aware cyclist would not have needed to slow down in the first instance, as they would have already anticipated the manoeuvre, and would instead have waved them on with a cheerful smile.

How do you anticipate a manoeuver from a parked car which is not signalling and not moving? 

How do you avoid colliding with a car that is pulling directly into your path then immediately slowing to a crawl without, at some point, slowing down yourself?

How polite and courteous do you think it is to lie about a person's behaviour and the context of the situation they were in for the purposes of mocking them?

Do you think your current behaviour makes you seem like anything other than a thoroughly unpleasant, smug and superior prig?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Wingguy wrote:

How do you anticipate a manoeuver from a parked car which is not signalling and not moving? 

How do you avoid colliding with a car that is pulling directly into your path then immediately slowing to a crawl without, at some point, slowing down yourself?

Well I just disagree with all that. The police car's lights were on and the driver was performing a manoevre a long way back in the approach.

Wait - I need to update my knowledge! So you're saying that now having your brakes on while stopped is a manouevre and having your brake lights on for (checks video yet again) 8 seconds means "I am turning left"?

Most times I am waiting at lights on my bike I note how many drivers have their foot on the brake. Also when stopped at the side of the road a fair few hold the car in the footbrake. I sometimes shout out in an alan partridgesque way 'use the handbrake'. (and 'it's not foggy, there's no fog' on other occasions)

The fact that brakes lights are on tells you nothing about the intentions of the driver.

hirsute wrote:

Most times I am waiting at lights on my bike I note how many drivers have their foot on the brake. Also when stopped at the side of the road a fair few hold the car in the footbrake. I sometimes shout out in an alan partridgesque way 'use the handbrake'. (and 'it's not foggy, there's no fog' on other occasions)

The fact that brakes lights are on tells you nothing about the intentions of the driver.

It tells you nothing of their intentions, but gives you some clue to their competence.

Had one yesterday. Parked partly on the pavement, on double yellow lines, pratting about on their mobile.

And you keep your foot on the brake in that situation because ...?

Unfortunately, some cars are designed to have a locking footbrake, a double push on mine, which holds the car and then you can drive off.

It took awhile to work out that it kept the brake lights on.

As the alternative is an incredibly noisy and awkward foot operated handbrake with release lever somewhere over there, I stick with it, but leaving indicators and brake lights on while waiting is considered poor form, especially at night.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well I just disagree with all that. The police car's lights were on and the driver was performing a manoevre a long way back in the approach.

Of course you disagree. If you acknowledge reality you don't get to perform your rude and condescending act.

Thing is, it doesn't even matter - you're still lying. How does the rider avoid hitting the police car without slowing down?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Wingguy wrote:

How do you anticipate a manoeuver from a parked car which is not signalling and not moving? 

How do you avoid colliding with a car that is pulling directly into your path then immediately slowing to a crawl without, at some point, slowing down yourself?

Well I just disagree with all that. The police car's lights were on and the driver was performing a manoevre a long way back in the approach.

No they aren't & no he wasn't.

Watch the video again.

If you don't realise by now that Boo and Nic will cite alternative facts to get responses by now.......

Not citing any alternative facts. My point is about the severity of the 'incident' and roadcc commentators ability to throw a hissy fit every time traffic impedes them. Your on a road . theres lots of things happen . its not a perfect world apart from in your highways code addled heads.

Well let face it with one more reminder below of it, one alternative fact you have used in the past is that you are good on the road so we should all listen to you. Unfortunately when trying to make out that the cyclist was in the wrong and it wasn't the fault of the driver you bleated that you regulalry break the law of the road, (Not a should not but a must not which would lead to points being added).

And in other videos will stated cars were ahead of cyclists approaching an island, (they were not) and in this one stated that Police car had seen the cyclist and slowed down for him (they didn't on either bit).

So alternative facts, unless you want me to call them lies?

Certainly never have blown my own trumpet re road craft. I leave that to others.  And feel free to call them lies. What you say is up to you.

I hope you've got that screenshot backed up!

nicmason wrote:

Not citing any alternative facts. My point is about the severity of the 'incident' and roadcc commentators ability to throw a hissy fit every time traffic impedes them. Your on a road . theres lots of things happen . its not a perfect world apart from in your highways code addled heads.

So much ignorance, so little time...

First, you need to look up a concept called the normalisation of deviance. Acceptance of simple careless driving as being ok and using that as your new baseline makes egregiously bad driving more common and more acceptable. 

Second, you go further and suggest that because the bad behaviour is common it should be treated as OK. This is prima facie absurd. The logical conclusion of that stance is that fewer instances of bad behaviour is a worse situation than widespread instances of the same behaviour. It's ludicrous.

Third, why do you care about defending the police and drivers on this forum? You're on the internet, there's lots of things that are said. It's not a perfect world apart from in your pro uniform, pro car addled head.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you use Latin in a sentence without understanding its meaning just to try to make yourself sound a bit more intelligent, it follows - ceteris paribus - that you'll look like a bit of a wally instead 😉

Thank you for providing a fine example of that.

The use of prima facie in the previous post is perfectly acceptable in the widely used sense of, "on the face of it, unless other evidence can be presented". It would have been better bracketed by commas though.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

How is it prima facie absurd?

How is it not?

If you pretend someone has misused a phrase just so you can insult them it follows that you yet again expose yourself as a boorish and rude individual who revels in antisocial behaviour.

Well thank you. I feel thoroughly patronised by your eloquence.

Good to see egregiously and prima facie cropping up there. 

I think your reading my failure to join in the attacking the police and drivers as support. That says more about where you are dont you think.

nicmason wrote:

Well thank you. I feel thoroughly patronised by your eloquence.

You were supposed to learn something, but I'm not surprised you decided to miss the opportunity. Seriously though, look up the concept of normalisation of deviance. If your stance of 'save criticism for really dangerous driving' comes from a genuine desire to tackle bad driving in the most effective way possible, it will change your mind.

Quote:

I think your reading my failure to join in the attacking the police and drivers as support. That says more about where you are dont you think.

No, I'm reading your characterisation of everyone criticising the driver in this video as a bunch of 'police hating roadcc lawyers' as support for police and drivers. What do you think it says about you?

But it is not you having a "failure to attack the Police or drivers" that you post is it? In most cases it is willfully interpreting video in your own way to blame it on the cyclists only in most cases. The first one I noticed from you was when two cyclists were squeezed in a tight entrance to a roundabout by a car who decided (and failed to) overtake them both on approach. Your "defence" of the driver was they had got in front of BOTH of them and THEY should have then braked for him and given way. Not one mention of HC regs on not overtaking at approach to junctions etc and the video clearly showed the drivers front wheel was level with the first cyclist at best just as they both stopped. 

Then of course there is the one with your infamous quote that you blatantly break the law when driving on mini roundabouts. How many posts on that thread did you do that were blaming the cyclist before finally admitting that driving on the wrong side of a roundabout was wrong but "we all do it near me". (Normal reminder of Nic's admittance of being a bad driver who should actually be banned from driving below). Of course it also blames the cyclist who was not on the wrong side of the island.

And then this article. No mention that they should have indicated and maybe set a better example of following road rules but making out an imaginary stopping of the manouvre which doesn't actually occur. 

I'm occupying a lot of space in your head. 

nicmason wrote:

I'm occupying a lot of space in your head. 

Just curious - have you considered occupying some in your own?

I'm very happy thanks. Im not the one turning quickly to general abuse. 

nicmason wrote:

I'm very happy thanks.

Not what I asked, but at least you seem to be consistent in not reading what you're responding to.

nicmason wrote:

Im not the one turning quickly to general abuse.

Apparently not even reading your own comments either...

nicmason wrote:

...roadcc commentators ability to throw a hissy fit every time traffic impedes them.

... its not a perfect world apart from in your highways code addled heads.

thats not personally addressing you though is it. Ive been abused personally several times on here disappointing but not suprising.

Poor you. I like to abuse people who admit dangerous driving myself. I mean they must be an arsehole to drive that badly and make the excuse of because it is easier for me to do that. 

 "arsehole" lovely. 

no, that wasn't directed at you personally. That was directed at all dangerous drivers who go the wrong way around mini roundabouts. Did you not see the "they must be arseholes?"  

nicmason wrote:

thats not personally addressing you though is it. 

That's pretty much the definition of general abuse, is it not?