The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.

It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.

Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?

https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177

On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
>
> It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
>
> Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177

A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> >
> > It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> >
> > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> >
> > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

He got a warning letter from the police though.

On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 13:59:30 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> > >
> > > It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> > >
> > > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> > >
> > > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> > A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.
> He got a warning letter from the police though.

The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have moved out of his way.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 9:34:56 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 13:59:30 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> > > >
> > > > It is one of the many close passes the fairy-cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the fairy-cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> > > >
> > > > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> > > A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.

> > He got a warning letter from the police though.

> The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
> No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the fairy-cyclist should have moved out of his way.

So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").

Thank you for proving a point.

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 3:34:56 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 13:59:30 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> > > >
> > > > It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> > > >
> > > > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> > > A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.
> > He got a warning letter from the police though.
> The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
> No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have moved out of his way.

Why don't they get angry at these too?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFRtefpWUAMuDjH?format=jpg&name=small

On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 11:17:37 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 3:34:56 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 13:59:30 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 1:04:38 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 27 November 2021 at 11:32:28 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > The road.cc reader involved in today's video managed to catch up with the motorist who'd nearly sent him into the hedges on a country lane in Kent, labelling the close pass 'the worst I've ever seen' to the driver before reporting him to the police.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is one of the many close passes the cyclist has had to deal with over the years, like so many of you, prompting him to film his rides as potential evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kent Police received this footage but only issued the motorist with a warning letter, which the cyclist believes is 'not a very satisfactory result'. What do you think upon closer inspection, does this driver deserve a tougher punishment?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://road.cc/content/news/nmiotd-669-cyclist-confronts-driver-after-close-pass-288177
> > > > A good example of why it is pointless to confront motorists. The are not mature enough to take responsibility for their actions.
> > > He got a warning letter from the police though.
> > The point is the drivers first reaction was 'I was forced to drive dangerously' because the victim was 'in the middle of the road' In other words it was someone else's fault. Typical infant excuse.
> > No doubt the driver is angry at the letter because in his mind he did nothing wrong and the cyclist should have moved out of his way.
> Why don't they get angry at these too?
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFRtefpWUAMuDjH?format=jpg&name=small

Or Horse riders. They don't pay Rude Tax.

On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").

No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

On Sunday, 28 November 2021 at 19:17:26 UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> > Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

Please do not feed the Trolls.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>
> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?

What does the word "never" mean?

What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?

On 28/11/2021 09:18 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 7:17:26 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
> 163
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

That calls for opinion of the situation.

Opinions of the situation may, and probably will, differ from time to
time and from person to person.

The word "never", OTOH, is not subject to opinion.

It means... er... never.

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 12:22:03 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> > Why don't they get angry at these too?
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFRtefpWUAMuDjH?format=jpg&name=small
> Or Horse riders. They don't pay Rude Tax.

Horses can damage the impatient driver's body work in a flurry of hooves, so they stay well clear until it's safe to overtake, just as the HC states. Same with tractors and other farm machinery.

On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>
>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>
> What does the word "never" mean?
>
> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?

In your opinion? Meaningless.

On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>
>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>> EXISTS?
>
>> What does the word "never" mean?

>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>
> In your opinion? Meaningless.

Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".

The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
*don't* do it.

On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>
>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>
>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>>> EXISTS?
>>
>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>
>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>
>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>
> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
> when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
> explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".

It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.

It would the opinion of any sensible person that the driver broke a rule
by overtaking in an unsafe manner.

> The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
> forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
> *don't* do it
Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:58:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:

> Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

HC 163
Overtake ONLY when it is /safe and legal/ to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
> > On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> >> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> >
> > No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> > until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> > blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>
> What does the word "never" mean?
>
> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?

Define 'obstruct'. A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

On 29/11/2021 11:58 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 23:41, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/11/2021 05:59 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/11/2021 15:11, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>>>
>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means
>>>>> don't blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>>>
>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>>>> EXISTS?
>>>
>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>
>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow
>>>> justify failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>>>
>>> In your opinion? Meaningless.
>>
>> Inadvertently, you agree with me. There is no room for "opinion" as to
>> when and whether it acceptable to break a rule that says, simply and
>> explicitly, "Never do [this or that]".
>
> It is only your opinion that the cyclist broke a rule.

Nonsense. The fairy-cyclist clearly obstructed a driver who wished to
overtake - a patent breach of HC Rule 168, which provides that such
obstruction is something which should *never* be done.

What does the rule say?

"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Note that it is not "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake
unless you feel like it".

Did the driver wish to overtake? Clearly so.

Was the driver obstructed by the fairy-cyclist? Clearly so.

> It would the opinion of any sensible person that the driver broke a rule
> by overtaking in an unsafe manner.

Your subjective opinion, like that of any other fairy-cyclist, is not
relevant.

The rule is *not* "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake unless
you feel like it for reasons of your own no matter how far-fetched".

The rule reads "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".
>
>> The rule means that it is never acceptable to do the thing which is
>> forbidden. Opinion on the subject is meaningless and childish. Just
>> *don't* do it

> Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.

That has a certain validity, but in this particular context, it has none
at all.

"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake".

Not "Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake unless you 'think'
he's doing something wrong".

That is all.

But apparently, for some fairy-cyclists, the word "never" has an odd
meaning, more akin to "sometimes".

On 30/11/2021 11:55 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:58:53 PM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Don't overtake in a unsafe manner.
>
> HC 163
> Overtake ONLY when it is /safe and legal/ to do so. You should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

HC 168:

Never (got that? NEVER!) obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake.

On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>
>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.

>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>> What does the word "never" mean?
>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>
> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:

> A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.

Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> >>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
> >>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
> >
> >>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
> >>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
> >>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
> >> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
> >> What does the word "never" mean?
> >> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
> >> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
> >
> > Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>
> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?

Correct.

On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 14:23:51 UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:16:51 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > A primary road user cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
> Not quite correct - THIS cyclist (under the red arrow) IS causing an obstruction!
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFcrXudVIA40A3e?format=jpg&name=medium

How did that cyclist even get there without a licence, insurance, MOT, Rude Tax or fuel duty.

On 30/11/2021 02:35 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 30 November 2021 at 13:40:28 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 30/11/2021 12:16 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 November 2021 at 15:11:44 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2021 07:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/11/2021 23:32, jnuge...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> So you refuse to accept that fairy-cyclists should obey Highway Code
>>>>>> Rule 168 ("Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass").
>
>>>>> No more than drivers should obey the rule about waiting to overtake
>>>>> until it is safe. Which on single track roads, especially, means don't
>>>>> blast past, causing the cyclist to wobble.
>
>>>> Why do you think the Rule "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" EXISTS?
>>>> What does the word "never" mean?
>>>> What twisted meaning to the word has to be applied to somehow justify
>>>> failing to obey a very clear and concise rule?
>
>>> Define 'obstruct'. A fairy-cyclist cycling on a road they have paid for is not an obstruction.
>
>> Please be clear: are you "arguing" that it is impossible for a
>> fairy-cyclist to obstruct another road-user?
>
> Correct.

The fairy-cyclist was obstructing a driver who wished to overtake.

Other fairy-cyclists posting here have attempted to "justify" the
obstruction, but they haven't, to their credit, denied that it happened.

They simply wriggled on their understanding of the word "never", as in
"Never obstruct a driver who wishes to overtake" (HC, Rule 168).

They seemed to be claiming instead that "never" doesn't mean "never" and
instead means "sometimes".