In so much of a hurry, but then has all the time in the world to argue the toss. Idiot driver's usual stupidity.

QUOTE:
For today's instalment in our regular series we'd rather not have to run, a dangerous driver appears doesn't appear to grasp that what she did was dangerous and illegal - even stopping to tell the victim that she'd brought it on herself.

Dr Hanne Bruhn was cycling in Aberdeenshire, and moved out to overtake a row of parked cars. You'd think the other option would be pretty ill-advisable... however that appeared to go over the head of a driver who still decided to overtake with inches to spare while Dr Bruhn was avoiding the obstacles.

Stopping her vehicle, the driver can be heard saying: "You're cycling all over the road. Cyclists are supposed to be in at the side.

"Yes you are. You're all over the bloody road."

Dr Bruhn tells the driver she is recording the incident. The driver replies: "I haven't got an issue with that, I haven't done anything."

When asked on Twitter how she was supposed to avoid the parked cars and stay at 'the side' of the road, Dr Bruhn replied: "I'm a superhero and can fly".

She also told road.cc it is unlikely she will be involving the police, saying that her local force "are probably struggling as it is and usually not much help up here."

https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989

David9694 wrote:

Driver failed to anticipate obvious move but since they can't be wrong about anything decides to take out their incompetence on the VRU.

This morning, riding with my son, me behind him and slightly further out (defensive positioning as he is not confident or skilled, yet).

Approaching two parked cars on our side of the road he moved to go around them, and I had to move out even more to dissuade the WVM who'd thought that was definitely the best place for an overtake surprise

He braked, waited for the few seconds it took for us to pass the parked cars and move back left, and then screamed away with genuine wheel spin...

Some people, eh?

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 11:04:11 UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> In so much of a hurry, but then has all the time in the world to argue the toss.

And obstructed the road far more than the cyclist allegedly did. Typical 'rules only apply to other people' motorist.

Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
4 likes
Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.

However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.

>
> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989

On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
>
> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
>
> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989

When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
their path on a collision course.

Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
wishes to overtake".

That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".

obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
just veer across the road.

On 16/04/2022 13:37, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> David9694 wrote:

> Driver failed to anticipate obvious move but since they can't be wrong about anything decides to take out their incompetence on the VRU.

> This morning, riding with my son, me behind him and slightly further out (defensive positioning as he is not confident or skilled, yet).

> Approaching two parked cars on our side of the road he moved to go around them, and I had to move out even more to dissuade the WVM who'd thought that was definitely the best place for an overtake surprise

> He braked, waited for the few seconds it took for us to pass the parked cars and move back left, and then screamed away with genuine wheel spin...

> Some people, eh?

Look on the bright side - at least he didn't shout "GOOTFW" before
killing them.

--
Spike

eburtthebike | 3069 posts | 6 hours ago
4 likes

QUOTE: Great to see the HC revisions having such a massive positive effect so quickly.ENDS

Altogether now - NOBODY'S READ IT!

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
> >
> > Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
> >
> > However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
> >
> >> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989
> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
> their path on a collision course.
>
> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
> wishes to overtake".
>
> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
>
> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
> just veer across the road.

So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster cyclists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:17:49 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

> So you agree all of these drivers should be prosecuted for failing to yield for faster cyclists.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

Their cars should also be crushed for blocking faster vehicles.

On 16/04/2022 06:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
>>>
>>> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe fairy-cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that fairy-cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
>>>
>>> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
>>>
>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989

>> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
>> their path on a collision course.
>> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
>> wishes to overtake".
>> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
>> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
>> just veer across the road.

> So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster fairy-cyclists.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g

Are fairy-cyclists on fairy-cycles *driving* them?

Or are they simply fairy-cycling on them (for the purposes of Rule 168)?

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 3:42:01 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 11:04:11 UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > In so much of a hurry, but then has all the time in the world to argue the toss.
> And obstructed the road far more than the cyclist allegedly did. Typical 'rules only apply to other people' motorist.

Agreed - plus the parked cars AND the idiot driver arguing the toss = major road blockage.

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 21:49:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 06:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
> >>>
> >>> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe fairy-cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that fairy-cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
> >>>
> >>> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
> >>>
> >>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989
>
> >> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
> >> their path on a collision course.
> >> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
> >> wishes to overtake".
> >> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
> >> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
> >> just veer across the road.
> > So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster fairy-cyclists.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
>
> fairy-cyclists

And immediately lost the argument.

On 17/04/2022 06:22 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 21:49:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 06:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe fairy-cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that fairy-cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989
>>
>>>> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
>>>> their path on a collision course.
>>>> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
>>>> wishes to overtake".
>>>> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
>>>> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
>>>> just veer across the road.
>>> So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster fairy-cyclists.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
>>
>> fairy-cyclists
>
> And immediately lost the argument.

You're going to lose every time if that's the level of your argument -
straight out of the infants' school playground.

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 14:23:11 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 06:22 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 21:49:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 16/04/2022 06:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >>>> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe fairy-cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that fairy-cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989
> >>
> >>>> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
> >>>> their path on a collision course.
> >>>> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
> >>>> wishes to overtake".
> >>>> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
> >>>> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
> >>>> just veer across the road.
> >>> So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster fairy-cyclists.
> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
> >>
> >> fairy-cyclists
> >
> > And immediately lost the argument.
> You're going to lose every time if that's the level of your argument -
> straight out of the infants' school playground.

Yawn. I am not the one using childish insults.

On 17/04/2022 02:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 14:23:11 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 06:22 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 21:49:32 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2022 06:17 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:55:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 05:09 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mungecrundle | 2574 posts | 2 hours ago
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously, anyone with more than half a wit would observe fairy-cyclist, observe parked car, and make the mental calculation that fairy-cyclist will move out to overtake car. They may even understand what the door zone is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, some people, as amply demonstrated in this NMOTD, are so fuckwitted that you need to think for them. So observation and an arm signal before manouvere would be gold standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/nmotd-749-cyclist-all-over-bloody-road-says-driver-291989
>>>>
>>>>>> When someone is about to overtake you, you are NOT supposed to move into
>>>>>> their path on a collision course.
>>>>>> Rule 168 of the Highway Code: [inter alia] "Never obstruct a driver who
>>>>>> wishes to overtake".
>>>>>> That's a solid "never", not an "unless you feel like it".
>>>>>> obeying the Highway Code is incompatible with any imaginary right to
>>>>>> just veer across the road.
>>>>> So you agree all of these drivers should be prsecuted for failing to yield for faster fairy-cyclists.
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLzGj10fg2g
>>>>
>>>> fairy-cyclists
>>>
>>> And immediately lost the argument.
>> You're going to lose every time if that's the level of your argument -
>> straight out of the infants' school playground.
>
> Yawn. I am not the one using childish insults.

Haha!

Are you *sure* about that?

Have a think about it.

[Yes, it might hurt a bit, but you can do it if you try.]

Lukas | 536 posts | 9 hours ago
7 likes
I saw something similar in London recently. Except the car was a Police vehicle. As the cyclist pulled out to pass the parked vehicles the Police vehicle seemingly sped up to block (I was cycling behind) The cyclist panicked a bit and swerved and then remonstrated with the Police - who had to brake due to the traffic. The cyclist was saying 'why did you do that you knew I was going to pull out?' . I also drew up to the Police vehicle and looked at the smug officers and said - I saw what you did. I didn't have the camera on unfortunately as I would definitely have reported it for the petty, vindictive automotive gesture it was. What annoyed me even more was that the cyclist wasn't a 'hoodie' cycling erratically (not that that would have excused the Polices' manouvre) but a nice gentleman on a Brompton going to work, neatly dressed and riding safely and with consideration. And of course we both cycled off to our respective jobs whilst Plod sat in traffic.

On 17/04/2022 04:57 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Lukas | 536 posts | 9 hours ago
> I saw something similar in London recently. Except the car was a Police vehicle. As the fairy-cyclist pulled out to pass the parked vehicles the Police vehicle seemingly sped up to block (I was fairy-cycling behind) The fairy-cyclist panicked a bit and swerved and then remonstrated with the Police - who had to brake due to the traffic. The fairy-cyclist was saying 'why did you do that you knew I was going to pull out?' . I also drew up to the Police vehicle and looked at the smug officers and said - I saw what you did. I didn't have the camera on unfortunately as I would definitely have reported it for the petty, vindictive automotive gesture it was. What annoyed me even more was that the fairy-cyclist wasn't a 'hoodie' cycling erratically (not that that would have excused the Polices' manouvre) but a nice gentleman on a Brompton going to work, neatly dressed and riding safely and with consideration. And of course we both fairy-cycled off to our respective jobs whilst Plod sat in traffic.
This sounds serious.
Even more people dislike fairy-cyclists than fairy-cyclists realise,
perhaps?

On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 17:01:29 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 04:57 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Lukas | 536 posts | 9 hours ago
> > I saw something similar in London recently. Except the car was a Police vehicle. As the fairy-cyclist pulled out to pass the parked vehicles the Police vehicle seemingly sped up to block (I was fairy-cycling behind) The fairy-cyclist panicked a bit and swerved and then remonstrated with the Police - who had to brake due to the traffic. The fairy-cyclist was saying 'why did you do that you knew I was going to pull out?' . I also drew up to the Police vehicle and looked at the smug officers and said - I saw what you did. I didn't have the camera on unfortunately as I would definitely have reported it for the petty, vindictive automotive gesture it was. What annoyed me even more was that the fairy-cyclist wasn't a 'hoodie' cycling erratically (not that that would have excused the Polices' manouvre) but a nice gentleman on a Brompton going to work, neatly dressed and riding safely and with consideration. And of course we both fairy-cycled off to our respective jobs whilst Plod sat in traffic.
>
>
> fairy-cyclists

And immediately lost the argument.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 1545 posts | 22 hours ago
6 likes
The police need to start treating instances of careless driving in a similar way to parking and littering fines (link is external).

It's just not right that a driver will pay for parking because they're very likely to be fined if they don't, yet will drive carelessly to and from their parking space because the chances of any punishment are desperately remote.

On 17/04/2022 05:18 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 at 17:01:29 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 04:57 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Lukas | 536 posts | 9 hours ago
>>> I saw something similar in London recently. Except the car was a Police vehicle. As the fairy-cyclist pulled out to pass the parked vehicles the Police vehicle seemingly sped up to block (I was fairy-cycling behind) The fairy-cyclist panicked a bit and swerved and then remonstrated with the Police - who had to brake due to the traffic. The fairy-cyclist was saying 'why did you do that you knew I was going to pull out?' . I also drew up to the Police vehicle and looked at the smug officers and said - I saw what you did. I didn't have the camera on unfortunately as I would definitely have reported it for the petty, vindictive automotive gesture it was. What annoyed me even more was that the fairy-cyclist wasn't a 'hoodie' cycling erratically (not that that would have excused the Polices' manouvre) but a nice gentleman on a Brompton going to work, neatly dressed and riding safely and with consideration. And of course we both fairy-cycled off to our respective jobs whilst Plod sat in traffic.
>>
>>
>> fairy-cyclists
>
> And immediately lost the argument.
If that's what you fairy-cyclists wish to "think".

Safety | 34 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

Comments about prosecutions, NIPs and 14 days etc are immaterial in Scotland as Police Scotland still have no facility to easily accept video evidence and no inclination to provide one.

reply quote

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to Safety | 709 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

Supposedly Police Scotland are building a portal for video evidence (https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/new-police-camera-footage-report... (link is external))

That said, the lack of a convenient portal does not actual prevent submitting video evidence in Scotland as I have done several times - albeit the current approach requires officers attending in person to take a statement which does seem like an inefficient use of everyone's time.

reply quote

On 18/04/2022 09:34, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Supposedly Police Scotland are building a portal for video evidence (https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/new-police-camera-footage-report... (link is external))

> That said, the lack of a convenient portal does not actual prevent submitting video evidence in Scotland as I have done several times - albeit the current approach requires officers attending in person to take a statement which does seem like an inefficient use of everyone's time.

Much better would be a system that automatically identified the vehicle,
hence the owner, then printed out the NIP, added points to his licence,
booked him in for an extended test, put this all on 'social media' test,
and emailed a copy to road.cc.

Then they'd wonder why drivers became like cyclists, with no licence, no
insurance, no vehicle testing, and the rest.

--
Spike

Oldfatgit replied to OnYerBike | 279 posts | 1 day ago
3 likes

Last one I reported, I had two officers from my local station (Livingston) do a home visit to watch the video.
The incident happened in Kirkliston, so they had to hand over to an officer from Corstorphine, who had to drive out here to Livi to watch the video and take away a copy on a memory stick.

Inefficient - yep ... But at least I knew that the video had been watched and that action (of some kind) was being taken.
(In that particular case, there were irregularities with the records on DVLA and they couldn't trace the driver/ owner at the time)

On 18/04/2022 01:29 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Oldfatgit replied to OnYerBike | 279 posts | 1 day ago
> 3 likes
>
> Last one I reported, I had two officers from my local station (Livingston) do a home visit to watch the video.
> The incident happened in Kirkliston, so they had to hand over to an officer from Corstorphine, who had to drive out here to Livi to watch the video and take away a copy on a memory stick.
>
> Inefficient - yep ... But at least I knew that the video had been watched and that action (of some kind) was being taken.
> (In that particular case, there were irregularities with the records on DVLA and they couldn't trace the driver/ owner at the time)

No licence?

So the culprit was a mere fairy-cyclist.

There's a lot of it about.

Fairy-cyclists are bad enough on fairy-bikes...

Avatar
David9694 replied to nosferatu1001 | 1442 posts | 2 days ago
2 likes
I was thinking that don't you reduce your chances of success with the police if you've shared your footage?

I didn't know that about the 14 day limit, which is clearly treated as an absolute and a get-out. Certain things like "don't post images of car number plates" get to become rules in people's minds.