I was intimidated twice by terrorist motorists yesterday.

[Doug[_3_]]

Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.

Incident one.

As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.

Incident two.

At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
him because his machine is more lethal than mine.

Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
treated by more lethal road users.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[PeterG]

On Jun 3, 6:42*am, Doug > wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Stupid buggers, if they can't complete on a contract, they wont get
the bounty,

[Mike Lewis]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.

There is a certain logic in that.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.

So nothing much happened

> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.

Again, nothing much happened.

Maybe both drivers recognised you ...

> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.

You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that your
vulnerability becomes a strength. Make sure they see you, make sure
you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well away from the
kerb, ride faster ..;)

Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't. They
probably just don't see you or understand your needs.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Derek C]

On Jun 3, 6:42*am, Doug > wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.
>
> --
Bugger, they both missed you!

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.

Similar things happen to all road users on a regular basis, both the events
you describe have happened to me within the last week or so while I have
been driving a car. It is just part of normal road use. You need to
expect the unexpected while using road vehicles, especially if you are on
an electric illegal cycle. The lack of pedal movement can be confusing to a
driver as they think that you are slowing down because the pedals are still.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > Incident one.
>
> > As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> So nothing much happened
>
If you call putting my life at risk and terrorising me 'nothing' then
yes.
>
> > Incident two.
>
> > At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> > straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> > coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> > straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> > as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> > him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Again, nothing much happened.
>
> Maybe both drivers recognised you ...
>
Doubtful.
>
> > Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> > crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> > cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> > are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> > with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> > supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> > treated by more lethal road users.
>
> You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that your
> vulnerability becomes a strength. *Make sure they see you, make sure
> you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well away from the
> kerb, ride faster ..;)
>
How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight at
you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope for is
that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they don't, as with
unintentional ramming.
>
> Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't. *They
> probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
>
No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere cyclist
and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists terrorising
intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it themselves when off
duty.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.










>
> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:

> > You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that
> > your vulnerability becomes a strength. *Make sure they see you,
> > make sure you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well
> > away from the kerb, ride faster ..;)
> >
> How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight at
> you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope for is
> that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they don't, as with
> unintentional ramming.

By reading the road properly and being aware of what's happening and
what's going to happen .. and expect the unexpected.

The same thing happens with cars .. treat _ALL_ road users as ****wits
and you will have less hassle all round. This sometimes means going
slower than normal, but also can mean going faster. Mind, when you're
riding an illegal vehicle you don't really want to attract too much
attention do you?

> > Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't.
> > *They probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
> >
> No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere cyclist
> and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists terrorising
> intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it themselves when off
> duty.

No, it's because nothing happened until there's an actual accident.

There's so much that you can do to mitigate these issues. Don't dawdle
in the gutter, move at a speed that's noticeable and keeping up with
traffic, wear something noticeable, don't let anything get the chance
to intimidate you. This basically applies to any road user really .. ;)

Instead of getting intimidated by 'incidents', roll with them,. learn
from them and move on from them. Constantly complaining without
offering _viable_ solutions makes you look like a ****wit with a chip
on your shoulder.

Clue: Drastically reducing car numbers isn't a _viable_ solution.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.

Have you phoned the government's hotline for reporting terrorists?

[Matt B]

On 03/06/2010 06:42, Doug wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.

These incidents display the classic and common consequences of the
dangerous priority systems that we use in the UK.

One road user is cajoled into assuming that because he has been granted
a legal priority over another road user that he should attempt to take
it, even if the other road user doesn't, for whatever reason, give it to
him.

This reliance on road users robotically obeying regulations to keep our
roads 'safe' has surely got to be replaced by something that works.

--
Matt B

[bugbear]

Matt B wrote:

> These incidents display the classic and common consequences of the
> dangerous priority systems that we use in the UK.
>
> One road user is cajoled into assuming that because he has been granted
> a legal priority over another road user that he should attempt to take
> it, even if the other road user doesn't, for whatever reason, give it to
> him.
>
> This reliance on road users robotically obeying regulations to keep our
> roads 'safe' has surely got to be replaced by something that works.
>

I'm sure most WVM and lorry drivers would enthusiastically
be in favour of "larger vehicle has priority", which I believe
is the practice in India.

BugBear

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 10:48, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that
> > > your vulnerability becomes a strength. *Make sure they see you,
> > > make sure you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well
> > > away from the kerb, ride faster ..;)
>
> > How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight at
> > you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope for is
> > that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they don't, as with
> > unintentional ramming.
>
> By reading the road properly and being aware of what's happening and
> what's going to happen .. and expect the unexpected.
>
> The same thing happens with cars .. treat _ALL_ road users as ****wits
> and you will have less hassle all round. *This sometimes means going
> slower than normal, but also can mean going faster. *Mind, when you're
> riding an illegal vehicle you don't really want to attract too much
> attention do you?
>
> > > Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't.
> > > *They probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
>
> > No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere cyclist
> > and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists terrorising
> > intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it themselves when off
> > duty.
>
> No, it's because nothing happened until there's an actual accident.
>
> There's so much that you can do to mitigate these issues. *Don't dawdle
> in the gutter, move at a speed that's noticeable and keeping up with
> traffic, wear something noticeable, don't let anything get the chance
> to intimidate you. *This basically applies to any road user really .. ;)
>
> Instead of getting intimidated by 'incidents', roll with them,. learn
> from them and move on from them. *Constantly complaining without
> offering _viable_ solutions makes you look like a ****wit with a chip
> on your shoulder.
>
> Clue: *Drastically reducing car numbers isn't a _viable_ solution.
>
Critical Mass is a partial solution which emphasises the plight of
cyclists for all to see.

Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions. Also there is a
worldwide anti-car movement which should be fully supported. Pressure
groups like RoadPeace also campaign and make representations to MPs
about the slaughter on our roads and how inadequately they are dealt
with.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 3 June, 10:48, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > > You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way
> > > > that your vulnerability becomes a strength. *Make sure they see
> > > > you, make sure you have an 'escape route' at every junction,
> > > > keep well away from the kerb, ride faster ..;)
> >
> > > How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight
> > > at you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope
> > > for is that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they
> > > don't, as with unintentional ramming.
> >
> > By reading the road properly and being aware of what's happening and
> > what's going to happen .. and expect the unexpected.
> >
> > The same thing happens with cars .. treat ALL road users as ****wits
> > and you will have less hassle all round. *This sometimes means going
> > slower than normal, but also can mean going faster. *Mind, when
> > you're riding an illegal vehicle you don't really want to attract
> > too much attention do you?
> >
> > > > Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't.
> > > > *They probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
> >
> > > No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere
> > > cyclist and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists
> > > terrorising intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it
> > > themselves when off duty.
> >
> > No, it's because nothing happened until there's an actual accident.
> >
> > There's so much that you can do to mitigate these issues. *Don't
> > dawdle in the gutter, move at a speed that's noticeable and keeping
> > up with traffic, wear something noticeable, don't let anything get
> > the chance to intimidate you. *This basically applies to any road
> > user really .. ;)
> >
> > Instead of getting intimidated by 'incidents', roll with them,.
> > learn from them and move on from them. *Constantly complaining
> > without offering viable solutions makes you look like a ****wit
> > with a chip on your shoulder.
> >
> > Clue: *Drastically reducing car numbers isn't a viable solution.
> >
> Critical Mass is a partial solution which emphasises the plight of
> cyclists for all to see.

Utter ********. CM appears to be an anarchistic indulgence, a free for
all with no clear aims (you say it's not a demonstration) and only
serves to antagonise those to whom you're asking for help.

> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action ,

er .. I'm not saying give in at all, I'm saying ride correctly and most
of your issues will go away. If you ride as slowly as the electric
bikes I see here (invariably driven by people over 70) then it's no
wonder you get issues.

It's you that will get hurt, you ought to mitigate the hurt as much as
you can instead of whinging.

> like publicising
> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.

See, that's where we differ. Your idea of a 'transgression' is
different to mine.

> Also there is a
> worldwide anti-car movement which should be fully supported. Pressure
> groups like RoadPeace also campaign and make representations to MPs
> about the slaughter on our roads and how inadequately they are dealt
> with.

Using tactics like cm certainly won't get my vote as either a cyclist
or as a driver and I think many people would agree with that rather
than agree that cm is a good thing.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.

If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would expect
that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one, and maybe as
high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack motorist's transgressions
when cyclists are far worse? Cyclists break laws because they can with
little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions right or
laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the world are fed up
with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to the rules of the road.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> > motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> > 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> > number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>
> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would expect
> that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one, and maybe as
> high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack motorist's transgressions
> when cyclists are far worse?
>
Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by MPs
and we know what they are like don't we?
>
> Cyclists break laws because they can with
> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions right or
> laudable. *It also explains why motorists throughout the world are fed up
> with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to the rules of the road.
>
Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
motorists than cyclists..

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
The Law is always open to question.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
>>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
>>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
>>> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>>
>> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would
>> expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one,
>> and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack
>> motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>>
> Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
> cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
> and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by MPs
> and we know what they are like don't we?
>>
>> Cyclists break laws because they can with
>> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
>> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
>> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
>> the rules of the road.
>>
> Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
> motorists than cyclists..

so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break it? Rather
childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 17:16, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> >>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> >>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> >>> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>
> >> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would
> >> expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one,
> >> and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack
> >> motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>
> > Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
> > cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
> > and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by MPs
> > and we know what they are like don't we?
>
> >> Cyclists break laws because they can with
> >> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
> >> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
> >> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
> >> the rules of the road.
>
> > Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
> > motorists than cyclists..
>
> so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break it? *Rather
> childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.
>
This sig seems to be a good response to your comment.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
King, Jr.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 3 June, 17:16, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
>>>>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
>>>>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like
>>>>> publicising number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>>
>>>> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would
>>>> expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to
>>>> one, and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack
>>>> motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>>
>>> Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
>>> cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
>>> and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by
>>> MPs and we know what they are like don't we?
>>
>>>> Cyclists break laws because they can with
>>>> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
>>>> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
>>>> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
>>>> the rules of the road.
>>
>>> Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
>>> motorists than cyclists..
>>
>> so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break it?
>> Rather childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.
>>
> This sig seems to be a good response to your comment.
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
King, Jr.

lots of people have said all sorts of things, but that does not make them
right or lawful, after all, just look at the words you spout on a daily
basis.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 17:31, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 3 June, 17:16, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> >>>>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> >>>>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like
> >>>>> publicising number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>
> >>>> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would
> >>>> expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to
> >>>> one, and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack
> >>>> motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>
> >>> Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
> >>> cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
> >>> and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by
> >>> MPs and we know what they are like don't we?
>
> >>>> Cyclists break laws because they can with
> >>>> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
> >>>> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
> >>>> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
> >>>> the rules of the road.
>
> >>> Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
> >>> motorists than cyclists..
>
> >> so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break it?
> >> Rather childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.
>
> > This sig seems to be a good response to your comment.
>
> An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
> and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
> reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
> King, Jr.
>
> lots of people have said all sorts of things, but that does not make them
> right or lawful, after all, just look at the words you spout on a daily
> basis.
>
It also follows that you are not right either, Mr Pot Kettle.

Doug

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 3 June, 17:31, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 3 June, 17:16, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
>>>>>>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
>>>>>>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like
>>>>>>> publicising number plates and videoing motorist's
>>>>>>> transgressions.
>>
>>>>>> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I
>>>>>> would expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least
>>>>>> 10 to one, and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try
>>>>>> to attack motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>>
>>>>> Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists
>>>>> but cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in
>>>>> applying laws and not just regard them as holy writ. After all,
>>>>> laws are made by MPs and we know what they are like don't we?
>>
>>>>>> Cyclists break laws because they can with
>>>>>> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
>>>>>> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
>>>>>> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
>>>>>> the rules of the road.
>>
>>>>> Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
>>>>> motorists than cyclists..
>>
>>>> so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break
>>>> it? Rather childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.
>>
>>> This sig seems to be a good response to your comment.
>>
>> An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
>> and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
>> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
>> reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
>> King, Jr.
>>
>> lots of people have said all sorts of things, but that does not make
>> them right or lawful, after all, just look at the words you spout on
>> a daily basis.
>>
> It also follows that you are not right either, Mr Pot Kettle.
>
> Doug

I do not make the rules, I merely point them out, you choose to ignore those
you dislike.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Breaking news, a car was pulling out of a side turning, saw a cyclist &
stopped.


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 3 June, 10:48, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that
>>>> your vulnerability becomes a strength. Make sure they see you,
>>>> make sure you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well
>>>> away from the kerb, ride faster ..;)
>>> How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight at
>>> you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope for is
>>> that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they don't, as with
>>> unintentional ramming.
>> By reading the road properly and being aware of what's happening and
>> what's going to happen .. and expect the unexpected.
>>
>> The same thing happens with cars .. treat _ALL_ road users as ****wits
>> and you will have less hassle all round. This sometimes means going
>> slower than normal, but also can mean going faster. Mind, when you're
>> riding an illegal vehicle you don't really want to attract too much
>> attention do you?
>>
>>>> Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't.
>>>> They probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
>>> No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere cyclist
>>> and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists terrorising
>>> intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it themselves when off
>>> duty.
>> No, it's because nothing happened until there's an actual accident.
>>
>> There's so much that you can do to mitigate these issues. Don't dawdle
>> in the gutter, move at a speed that's noticeable and keeping up with
>> traffic, wear something noticeable, don't let anything get the chance
>> to intimidate you. This basically applies to any road user really .. ;)
>>
>> Instead of getting intimidated by 'incidents', roll with them,. learn
>> from them and move on from them. Constantly complaining without
>> offering _viable_ solutions makes you look like a ****wit with a chip
>> on your shoulder.
>>
>> Clue: Drastically reducing car numbers isn't a _viable_ solution.
>>
> Critical Mass is a partial solution which emphasises the plight of
> cyclists for all to see.
>
> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions. Also there is a
> worldwide anti-car movement which should be fully supported. Pressure
> groups like RoadPeace also campaign and make representations to MPs
> about the slaughter on our roads and how inadequately they are dealt
> with.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why would anybody go on an event that is so dangerous, every time the
London one is on Doug reports 'rammings', & its not just in this country
Doug is always reporting on these dangerous events.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
>>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
>>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
>>> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would expect
>> that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one, and maybe as
>> high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack motorist's transgressions
>> when cyclists are far worse?
>>
> Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
> cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
> and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by MPs
> and we know what they are like don't we?
>> Cyclists break laws because they can with
>> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions right or
>> laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the world are fed up
>> with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to the rules of the road.
>>
> Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
> motorists than cyclists..
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> The Law is always open to question.

Translation:-

I am a cyclist & I don't think that laws should apply to me.
(But do not forget Doug uses an illegal uninsured vehicle)

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 18:52, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 3 June, 10:48, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 3 June, 07:57, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >>>> You keep saying how vulnerable you are, so ride in such a way that
> >>>> your vulnerability becomes a strength. *Make sure they see you,
> >>>> make sure you have an 'escape route' at every junction, keep well
> >>>> away from the kerb, ride faster ..;)
> >>> How do you ensure an escape route when a car is driving straight at
> >>> you broadside on and is within inches of you? All you can hope for is
> >>> that they have very good brakes, which sometimes they don't, as with
> >>> unintentional ramming.
> >> By reading the road properly and being aware of what's happening and
> >> what's going to happen .. and expect the unexpected.
>
> >> The same thing happens with cars .. treat _ALL_ road users as ****wits
> >> and you will have less hassle all round. *This sometimes means going
> >> slower than normal, but also can mean going faster. *Mind, when you're
> >> riding an illegal vehicle you don't really want to attract too much
> >> attention do you?
>
> >>>> Drivers really don't want to hit you, they really, really don't.
> >>>> *They probably just don't see you or understand your needs.
> >>> No they just don't want to give way to me because I am a mere cyclist
> >>> and the police are not bothered anyway by motorists terrorising
> >>> intimidation of cyclists, maybe because they do it themselves when off
> >>> duty.
> >> No, it's because nothing happened until there's an actual accident.
>
> >> There's so much that you can do to mitigate these issues. *Don't dawdle
> >> in the gutter, move at a speed that's noticeable and keeping up with
> >> traffic, wear something noticeable, don't let anything get the chance
> >> to intimidate you. *This basically applies to any road user really ... ;)
>
> >> Instead of getting intimidated by 'incidents', roll with them,. learn
> >> from them and move on from them. *Constantly complaining without
> >> offering _viable_ solutions makes you look like a ****wit with a chip
> >> on your shoulder.
>
> >> Clue: *Drastically reducing car numbers isn't a _viable_ solution.
>
> > Critical Mass is a partial solution which emphasises the plight of
> > cyclists for all to see.
>
> > Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> > motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> > 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> > number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions. Also there is a
> > worldwide anti-car movement which should be fully supported. Pressure
> > groups like RoadPeace also campaign and make representations to MPs
> > about the slaughter on our roads and how inadequately they are dealt
> > with.
>
>
> Why would anybody go on an event that is so dangerous, every time the
> London one is on Doug reports 'rammings', & its not just in this country
> Doug is always reporting on these dangerous events.
>
Actually the point you are missing here is that CM is safer than
cycling individually. Its called 'safety in numbers'. Also the
slaughter of individual cyclists on our roads usually attracts little
publicity, like the rest of the eight or nine deaths on our roads
every day.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Jun 4, 8:34*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 3 June, 18:52, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
>
..
>
> Actually the point you are missing here is that CM is safer than
> cycling individually.

No it isn't. If cyclists are cycling individually, then motorists can
only run down one at a time.

[BrianW[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 5:19*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 3 June, 17:16, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 3 June, 17:01, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> > >> Doug wrote:
> > >>> Instead of always playing safe and giving in to these terrorist
> > >>> motorists, as you seem to recommend, its better to publicise
> > >>> 'complaints' as much as possible and take action , like publicising
> > >>> number plates and videoing motorist's transgressions.
>
> > >> If I videoed RLJs in a busy cycling area (like London) then I would
> > >> expect that cyclist RLJs would outnumber cars by at least 10 to one,
> > >> and maybe as high as 100 to one, so how can you try to attack
> > >> motorist's transgressions when cyclists are far worse?
>
> > > Simple. Motorists are much more dangerous and they kill cyclists but
> > > cyclists don't kill them. One needs to be pragmatic in applying laws
> > > and not just regard them as holy writ. After all, laws are made by MPs
> > > and we know what they are like don't we?
>
> > >> Cyclists break laws because they can with
> > >> little danger of being caught, this does not make their actions
> > >> right or laudable. It also explains why motorists throughout the
> > >> world are fed up with the cavalier attitude that cyclists have to
> > >> the rules of the road.
>
> > > Maybe its the laws that are wrong because they are more suited to
> > > motorists than cyclists..
>
> > so if you don't like a law then it is ok to just ignore it/break it? *Rather
> > childish sort of attitude it sounds to me.
>
> This sig seems to be a good response to your comment.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust,
> and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to
> arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in
> reality expressing the highest respect for the law." Martin Luther
> King, Jr.-

Mmmm. Thing is, Gollum, you always ignore the bit that says *who
willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment*. Instead, you whine
about how your mates are treated by the law. That's because you don't
accept the penalties set out in the law, as you think the law
shouldn't apply to you and your mates.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 4 June, 10:28, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:34*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 3 June, 18:52, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> .
>
> > Actually the point you are missing here is that CM is safer than
> > cycling individually.
>
> No it isn't. If cyclists are cycling individually, then motorists can
> only run down one at a time.
>
True but a driver can still run down several in succession.

If it was attempted on CM I would expect a very angry reaction by a
large crowd of riders, with supporting pics and videos, leading to a
charge of either murder or attempted murder, instead of the more usual
lightweight charge of 'dangerous driving'.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 4 June, 10:28, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 8:34 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 June, 18:52, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>
>> .
>>
>>> Actually the point you are missing here is that CM is safer than
>>> cycling individually.
>>
>> No it isn't. If cyclists are cycling individually, then motorists can
>> only run down one at a time.
>>
> True but a driver can still run down several in succession.
>
> If it was attempted on CM I would expect a very angry reaction by a
> large crowd of riders, with supporting pics and videos, leading to a
> charge of either murder or attempted murder, instead of the more usual
> lightweight charge of 'dangerous driving'.

so the next time a cyclist tries to crash into me I can get a charge of
attempted murder going against him?

[roger merriman]

Doug > wrote:

> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal road users.
>

you wheren't seen, you need to do something about that.

cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.

you do get fools and foolish moves as it's busy urban roads, had a
lovely one friday night lorry atempted to overtake just before a busy
junction, as i was braking to stop behind the waiting traffic, lorry
pulled along side and started to edge into my lane, he stopped as i
didn't shift.

he ended up in the wrong lane, now could of used his indicators, or
simply waited, these are big wide roads no problems overtaking bikes
etc.

as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go straight on.
hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress for lorry, lots of
honking as he attempted to merge...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Doug[_3_]]

On 6 June, 10:55, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Doug > wrote:
> > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > Incident one.
>
> > As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> > Incident two.
>
> > At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> > straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> > coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> > straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> > as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> > him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> > Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> > crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> > cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> > are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> > with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> > supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> > treated by more lethal road users.
>
> you wheren't seen, you need to do something about that.
>
He saw me and tried to intimidate me into giving way to him.
>
> cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.
>
Maybe the majority don't but it only takes one to harm a vulnerable
cyclist.
>
> you do get fools and foolish moves as it's busy urban roads, had a
> lovely one friday night lorry atempted to overtake just before a busy
> junction, as i was braking to stop behind the waiting traffic, lorry
> pulled along side and started to edge into my lane, he stopped as i
> didn't shift.
>
> he ended up in the wrong lane, now could of used his indicators, or
> simply waited, these are big wide roads no problems overtaking bikes
> etc.
>
> as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go straight on.
> hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress for lorry, lots of
> honking as he attempted to merge...
>
Very well done if you were on a bicycle!

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

>>
> He saw me and tried to intimidate me into giving way to him.

But you should give way ****wit. You are using a completely unviable form
of transport on a road you haven't paid to use.

>> cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.
>>
> Maybe the majority don't but it only takes one to harm a vulnerable
> cyclist.

Then keep well out of the way of tax paying motorists.

You really need to learn that cyclists are sponging scum who shouldn't get
in the way of motorists.

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[roger merriman]

Doug > wrote:

> On 6 June, 10:55, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Doug > wrote:
> > > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > > fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
> >
> > > Incident one.
> >
> > > As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> > > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > > being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
> >
> > > Incident two.
> >
> > > At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> > > straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> > > coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> > > straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> > > as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> > > him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
> >
> > > Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> > > crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> > > cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> > > are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> > > with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> > > supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> > > treated by more lethal road users.
> >
> > you wheren't seen, you need to do something about that.
> >
> He saw me and tried to intimidate me into giving way to him.

yes it's london busy urban traffic, if you let them they will.
> >
> > cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.
> >
> Maybe the majority don't but it only takes one to harm a vulnerable
> cyclist.

the point is none do, they might be thoughless etc but it's not
intendend. which is why, the way a bike is riden can change the way rest
of traffic behaves.
> >
> > you do get fools and foolish moves as it's busy urban roads, had a
> > lovely one friday night lorry atempted to overtake just before a busy
> > junction, as i was braking to stop behind the waiting traffic, lorry
> > pulled along side and started to edge into my lane, he stopped as i
> > didn't shift.
> >
> > he ended up in the wrong lane, now could of used his indicators, or
> > simply waited, these are big wide roads no problems overtaking bikes
> > etc.
> >
> > as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go straight on.
> > hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress for lorry, lots of
> > honking as he attempted to merge...
> >
> Very well done if you were on a bicycle!
>
of coarse i was, while I'm not a aggressive rider I don't move over just
because some car/lorry/bus would like me to. But in that case I would of
given him space had he used his indicateres.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Doug[_3_]]

On 7 June, 08:22, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Doug > wrote:
> > On 6 June, 10:55, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > > Doug > wrote:
> > > > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > > > fast cyclist, rarely exceeding 10mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > > > Incident one.
>
> > > > As I was passing a side turning a motorist drove straight out of it at
> > > > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > > > being on a main road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> > > > Incident two.
>
> > > > At a major road junction the lights turned green and I proceeded
> > > > straight ahead quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a motorist
> > > > coming from the opposite direction decided to turn right and drove
> > > > straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> > > > as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> > > > him because his machine is more lethal than mine.
>
> > > > Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> > > > crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> > > > cyclists, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the incidents
> > > > are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> > > > with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what cyclists are
> > > > supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> > > > treated by more lethal road users.
>
> > > you wheren't seen, you need to do something about that.
>
> > He saw me and tried to intimidate me into giving way to him.
>
> yes it's london busy urban traffic, if you let them they will.
>
>
>
> > > cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.
>
> > Maybe the majority don't but it only takes one to harm a vulnerable
> > cyclist.
>
> the point is none do, they might be thoughless etc but it's not
> intendend. which is why, the way a bike is riden can change the way rest
> of traffic behaves.
>
I am often deliberately intimidated by drivers who drive straight at
me and brake at the very last second leaving mere inches to spare.
They clearly want me to give way to them and intimidate me regardless
of who is right or wrong. It has happened to me while actually going
round roundabouts and while passing minor sideturnings.
>
>
> > > you do get fools and foolish moves as it's busy urban roads, had a
> > > lovely one friday night lorry atempted to overtake just before a busy
> > > junction, as i was braking to stop behind the waiting traffic, lorry
> > > pulled along side and started to edge into my lane, he stopped as i
> > > didn't shift.
>
> > > he ended up in the wrong lane, now could of used his indicators, or
> > > simply waited, these are big wide roads no problems overtaking bikes
> > > etc.
>
> > > as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go straight on.
> > > hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress for lorry, lots of
> > > honking as he attempted to merge...
>
> > Very well done if you were on a bicycle!
>
> of coarse i was, while I'm not a aggressive rider I don't move over just
> because some car/lorry/bus would like me to. But in that case I would of
> given him space had he used his indicateres.
>
So he wasn't actually trying to intimidate you, or was he?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 7 June, 08:22, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Doug > wrote:
> > > On 6 June, 10:55, (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> > > > as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go
> > > > straight on. hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress
> > > > for lorry, lots of honking as he attempted to merge...
> >
> > > Very well done if you were on a bicycle!
> >
> > of coarse i was, while I'm not a aggressive rider I don't move over
> > just because some car/lorry/bus would like me to. But in that case
> > I would of given him space had he used his indicateres.
> >
> So he wasn't actually trying to intimidate you, or was he?

Most drivers aren't trying to intimidate cycliists at all. The lorry
driver just wanted to be in the Rogers lane, but didn't use his
indicators. As Roger didn't move over he was clearly not intimidated.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[roger merriman]

Doug > wrote:

> On 7 June, 08:22, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Doug > wrote:
> > > On 6 June, 10:55, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > > > Doug > wrote:
snips

> >
> > > > cars really don't want to hit you or force you out of the way.
> >
> > > Maybe the majority don't but it only takes one to harm a vulnerable
> > > cyclist.
> >
> > the point is none do, they might be thoughless etc but it's not
> > intendend. which is why, the way a bike is riden can change the way rest
> > of traffic behaves.
> >
> I am often deliberately intimidated by drivers who drive straight at
> me and brake at the very last second leaving mere inches to spare.
> They clearly want me to give way to them and intimidate me regardless
> of who is right or wrong. It has happened to me while actually going
> round roundabouts and while passing minor sideturnings.
> >
you feel deliberately intimdated, that is the root of the problem.
> >
> > > > you do get fools and foolish moves as it's busy urban roads, had a
> > > > lovely one friday night lorry atempted to overtake just before a busy
> > > > junction, as i was braking to stop behind the waiting traffic, lorry
> > > > pulled along side and started to edge into my lane, he stopped as i
> > > > didn't shift.
> >
> > > > he ended up in the wrong lane, now could of used his indicators, or
> > > > simply waited, these are big wide roads no problems overtaking bikes
> > > > etc.
> >
> > > > as it was he ended up in the right turn lane, wanting to go straight on.
> > > > hardly the end of the world but unnessary stress for lorry, lots of
> > > > honking as he attempted to merge...
> >
> > > Very well done if you were on a bicycle!
> >
> > of coarse i was, while I'm not a aggressive rider I don't move over just
> > because some car/lorry/bus would like me to. But in that case I would of
> > given him space had he used his indicateres.
> >
> So he wasn't actually trying to intimidate you, or was he?
>

no he was just trying (and failing) a dumb move. he was not out to get
me etc, he was just at that point being foolish.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com