Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

JNugent wrote:

On 15/05/2020 09:47, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 14/05/2020 19:08, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 14/05/2020 12:54, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

On 11:57 14 May 2020, Kelly said:

JNugent wrote:

On 14/05/2020 11:11, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

On 14/05/2020 09:19, Kelly wrote:

I can't help feeling this is a minor issue, in more ways than one.
Even so, I agree with you that current emergency regulations have
been broken. I think the police should at least remind the father of
his responsibility towards ensuring his daughter maintains social
distancing rules. Ironically, the police can see where the father
failed in that regard from the father's own video, something that he
and his wife brought to the attention of the police themselves.

Looking at the video, we see the child slowing down and holding
station well behind the couple. The gap between her head and the feet
of the couple showed a period of 6 or 7 seconds where the distance
didn't reduce - with the gap clearly more than 2m.

I suspect that she had noticed on other occasions that when her
father called out, people had reacted and she could proceed. She just
didn't know what to do if a gap didn't open.

Yes, that sounds more than feasible. I wouldn't blame that young girl
for anything that happened there.

She isn't to blame. Her parent or parents were.

Has anyone here suggested otherwise?

With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have
been better had the father waited until the path was widened out a
bit. But it's necessary to wonder how the moaners do better in
matters of the moment.

That is it, really, in a nutshell. And hopefully, with the help of
that 20:20 hindsight vision, all those involved in the 'incident' will
be that little bit wiser in future.

How can wisdom (or even increased amounts of it) help protect you
against a cyclist running into you from behind on a footpath?

First of all, a cyclist with enough wisdom would not run into you from
behind. Also, if you as a pedestrian were 'run into from behind' by a
toddler of her little bike travelling at barely walking 'speed', with
enough wisdom you would react with a little bit of understanding
instead of unnecessarily going off the deep end in a highly aggressive
manner.

"Barely walking speed"? The couple are going at walking speed...

The average human walking speed is about 5.0 kilometres per hour
(km/h) or about 3.1 miles per hour (mph).

I don't think the couple were travelling at that speed.

There are a range of normal walking speeds.

Okay... some of them are slow and some of them are faster.

The average of them is about 3mph.

Yes that would be somewhere between slow and fast.

The victim couple and their dog* were walking at a normal walking speed.

Well, why don't we settle on a slowish normal walking speed then.
They were more ambling or strolling along as you are more apt to do
when walking a dog and wrapped up in conversation with a partner - so
wrapped up in fact that you could well be unaware of a small girl
approching from behind on a tiny bicycle calling to be excused before
she tries to squeeze through between you and your partner.

That might have some validity in normal times.

For the Nth time: this is NOT normal times. The child should have kept,
by her parents, at least two metres away from those victims, at all
relevant times.

As far as I am aware, everybody in the whole group knows that. In
fact, in my very first reply to you in this thread I said: "...I agree
with you that current emergency regulations have been broken. I think
the police should at least remind the father of his responsibility
towards ensuring his daughter maintains social distancing rules.
Ironically, the police can see where the father failed in that regard
from the father's own video, something that he and his wife brought to
the attention of the police themselves."

So, what could be clearer than that?

This vital fact seems to be totally ignored. It should not be.

Eight posts from here up, in this thread, TMS320 says: "With the
benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have been better
had the father waited until the path was widened out a bit." to which
I replied, "That is it, really, in a nutshell." As in, yes, it was
the father's responsibility (not sure if the mother was actually
there) to keep his daughter two metres away from other people - of
course, it was, and we all know that.

Not a word of that is about the behaviour required as a result of
current problems.

Not if that is the way you choose to see it.

Every word of it apply in normal circumstances.

Then I added: "...all those involved in the 'incident' will be that
little bit wiser in future." But it looks as though you don't think
the victim man has anything to learn from this incident.

What can he "learn"?

How about, if he had responded better everyone would have thought
better of him for being an obvious good guy? It's not obligatory, I
know, and can accept that too. Maybe he likes playing the bad guy. In
which case, having delivered a volley of verbal abuse, giving the
child's bike a good kick on departing was a clever move.

That a cyclist might run into him from behind on a footpath? That some
people - regrettably, including the parents of some small children -
will not behave responsibly?

He very possibly already knew that. After all, everyone else does.

Okay, I also wouldn't have thought either of those where something he
had to learn (they're, as you say, both possibilities that people are
aware of. Although I have, in fact, never been run into from behind on
a footpath... just lucky, I guess.)

Okay, that's
your view but I still think he could have responded better, even under
these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil from the child in
horror when she brushed up against him, as if in fear of being exposed
to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He didn't stand back from her at
all, on the contrary, he held his ground and remonstrated quite
aggressively with the father, who then couldn't immediately retrieve
his distressed child. As far as I'm concerned, the victim man would
have gained far more sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a
bit more responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he and
his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean that the
parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the main
point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of the
social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

On 11:29 15 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:06:23 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


Maybe he should man up and stop feeling "harassed" by a 6 year old
girl?

I'm not sure why you keep changing what I wrote about the "gobby chav"
to make it look like I was writing about a "6 year old girl".

Perhaps dishonest quoting is a habit of yours?

In the thread about the dog walking couple who kicked a child's bike and
told her that they couldn't "give a f***" about it, YOU stated:

QUOTE: "The man taking the video should have restrained his daughter
from harassing the couple." ENDS

I was merely reminding you what you said. Sorry if you are now
embarassed by such a silly remark.


You quoted my text and change somes words. Above I wrote:

"He's clearly a decent man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by the
gobby chav"

You dishonestly changed that to:

"He's clearly a man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by a six year
old girl.

I corrected it back and once again you dishonestly quoted me. Perhaps this
is typical of you when you run out of arguments.

On 15/05/2020 15:42, Pamela wrote:
On 11:29 15 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:06:23 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


Maybe he should man up and stop feeling "harassed" by a 6 year old
girl?

I'm not sure why you keep changing what I wrote about the "gobby chav"
to make it look like I was writing about a "6 year old girl".

Perhaps dishonest quoting is a habit of yours?

In the thread about the dog walking couple who kicked a child's bike and
told her that they couldn't "give a f***" about it, YOU stated:

QUOTE: "The man taking the video should have restrained his daughter
from harassing the couple." ENDS

I was merely reminding you what you said. Sorry if you are now
embarassed by such a silly remark.


You quoted my text and change somes words. Above I wrote:

"He's clearly a decent man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by the
gobby chav"

You dishonestly changed that to:

"He's clearly a man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by a six year
old girl.

I corrected it back and once again you dishonestly quoted me. Perhaps this
is typical of you when you run out of arguments.

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

On 15:56 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

On 15/05/2020 15:42, Pamela wrote:
On 11:29 15 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:06:23 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:


Maybe he should man up and stop feeling "harassed" by a 6 year old
girl?

I'm not sure why you keep changing what I wrote about the "gobby
chav" to make it look like I was writing about a "6 year old girl".

Perhaps dishonest quoting is a habit of yours?

In the thread about the dog walking couple who kicked a child's bike
and told her that they couldn't "give a f***" about it, YOU stated:

QUOTE: "The man taking the video should have restrained his daughter
from harassing the couple." ENDS

I was merely reminding you what you said. Sorry if you are now
embarassed by such a silly remark.


You quoted my text and change somes words. Above I wrote:

"He's clearly a decent man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by
the gobby chav"

You dishonestly changed that to:

"He's clearly a man pushed beyond the limits of endurance by a six
year old girl.

I corrected it back and once again you dishonestly quoted me. Perhaps
this is typical of you when you run out of arguments.

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to resort to
underhand methods.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same room
as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to win their
argument in the way the lower orders often do.

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 4:25:08 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same room
as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to win their
argument in the way the lower orders often do.

Your original assertion that a six year old girl was capable of "harassing" a big ugly potty mouthed chav was worthy of the derision it attracted.

I mean, just look at them!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

JNugent wrote:

On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
For the Nth time: this is NOT normal times. The child should have kept,
by her parents, at least two metres away from those victims, at all
relevant times.

As far as I am aware, everybody in the whole group knows that. In
fact, in my very first reply to you in this thread I said: "...I agree
with you that current emergency regulations have been broken. I think
the police should at least remind the father of his responsibility
towards ensuring his daughter maintains social distancing rules.
Ironically, the police can see where the father failed in that regard
from the father's own video, something that he and his wife brought to
the attention of the police themselves."

So, what could be clearer than that?

This vital fact seems to be totally ignored. It should not be.

Eight posts from here up, in this thread, TMS320 says: "With the
benefit of 20:20 hindsight vision, perhaps it would have been better
had the father waited until the path was widened out a bit." to which
I replied, "That is it, really, in a nutshell." As in, yes, it was
the father's responsibility (not sure if the mother was actually
there) to keep his daughter two metres away from other people - of
course, it was, and we all know that.

Not a word of that is about the behaviour required as a result of
current problems.

Not if that is the way you choose to see it.

That HAS to be the only way to see such things at present.

Every word of it apply in normal circumstances.

Then I added: "...all those involved in the 'incident' will be that
little bit wiser in future." But it looks as though you don't think
the victim man has anything to learn from this incident.

What can he "learn"?

How about, if he had responded better everyone would have thought
better of him for being an obvious good guy? It's not obligatory, I
know, and can accept that too. Maybe he likes playing the bad guy. In
which case, having delivered a volley of verbal abuse, giving the
child's bike a good kick on departing was a clever move.

People have different personalities. Most people, whatever their natural
tendencies, will take exception to being run into by a bicycle. There
will almost certainly have been a certain ount of shock coming into
play. Don't be so judgmental of natural reactions. Be judgmental of
deliberate acts.

That a cyclist might run into him from behind on a footpath? That some
people - regrettably, including the parents of some small children -
will not behave responsibly?

He very possibly already knew that. After all, everyone else does.

Okay, I also wouldn't have thought either of those where something he
had to learn (they're, as you say, both possibilities that people are
aware of. Although I have, in fact, never been run into from behind on
a footpath... just lucky, I guess.)

There's little else that he and his companion could "learn" from the
incident.

Okay, that's
your view but I still think he could have responded better, even under
these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil from the child in
horror when she brushed up against him, as if in fear of being exposed
to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He didn't stand back from her at
all, on the contrary, he held his ground and remonstrated quite
aggressively with the father, who then couldn't immediately retrieve
his distressed child. As far as I'm concerned, the victim man would
have gained far more sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a
bit more responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he and
his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean that the
parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the main
point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of the
social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote:
A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when they
refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been updated
as such.
Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...icycle-police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video went
viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and social
distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being broken
by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:01:03 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Here is the potty mouthed chav and his scummy sour faced bint.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

On 15/05/2020 16:24, Pamela wrote:
On 15:56 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to
resort to underhand methods.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with Nugent's twisting and dishonesty.
And his use of meaningless big words.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the same
room as me when this happens, else they might resort to violence to
win their argument in the way the lower orders often do.

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:45:07 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no doubt
you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Why do you think he has been in my killfile for 10 years?

Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 8:01:03 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Here is the potty mouthed chav and his scummy sour faced bint.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

Hmm... I've been told not to be too judgmental - although it does look
like The Sun and social media have already made up their minds on how
they feel about this guy and his natural reactions.