Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 10:24 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 17/05/2020 09:12, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

She's such a poor cyclist that she could easily have fallen over all
on her own, especially as her bike has no stabiliser wheels and she
can't use the brakes. If the father wants to train his daughter to
cycle, he should do it in his back garden rather than a public path
where she and he will inevitably closely approach members of the
public at a time of Covid distancing.

Yes, to all that. And if he didn't have a suitable back garden then,
as another poster on the group here as already said, with the benefit
of hindsight, he should have been doing all this in a more open space
rather than that narrow path which allowed his daughter no room for
error.

I don't agree that she didn't know how to control the bike.

Why didn't the little girl use the bike's brakes to stop when she found the
path ahead blocked?

She then attempted to squeeze into a gap between two people and fell over in
the process.

What she had
little experience with was about dealing with eventualities.

She had clearly done the stabiliser and back garden stuff. Besides,
anybody with experience of stabilisers knows that they only help before
balance is learnt and don't do anything about loss of control (if
anything, they make it worse).

She appears to have lost her balance when she tried to go between the two
people. Maybe she still needs her stabiliser wheels.

On 13:30 17 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:42:21 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the
girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard
and fell over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the
footpath?

My issue was with the chavvy potty mouthed bloke telling the 6 year old
child that he couldn't "give a f***" after kicking her bike.

The man is speaking to the aggressive father not the child. I can't hear the
actual words "I don't give a ****". Can you?

Exactly the same as if he had kicked her scooter or skateboard and said
the same to her. Nasty piece of work.

The man taps the bike with his foot symbolically as rejoinder to the
aggression and unreasonable demands made by the father.

Perhaps you are claiming if the child was alone without a gobby father
stirring up trouble that the man would have tapped the child's bike the way
he did? Please clarify.

The nasty pieces of work are those who make knowingly false allegations. For
shame.

JNugent wrote:

On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:

Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

You (and they) should not do so when it's not justified. And it isn't
justified in this case.

I agree with that. When I say I see the best in cyclists that doesn't
mean I excuse them for any and every wrong doing they get up to.
Clearly cyclists do plenty that can't be justified. But I admit, if
there is a benefit of a doubt to be had, I have a strong tendency to
give that to the cyclist. You may call me prejudiced (and have done)
but in a similar way, aren't you equally prejudiced in seeing the
worst in cyclists? I mean, you surely must see you have a strong
tendency to deny giving any benefit of any doubt to a cyclist (the
incident of the cyclist who took a tumble when the shadow of a passing
motorbike rider's extended arm and hand was cast over him, being a
good example).

Automatically taking the side of whoever is using one's preferred mode
of transport - irrespective of how bad their behaviour - is wrong
anyway.

Put that way, yes, but it's often not as black and white as that.

Some would say, for instance, that it would have meant my taking
the side of that van driver who failed to give way at a roundabout and
hit a cyclist who was using the roundabout properly.

This was in a video link posted here a few days ago. It was obvious that
the van driver was in the wrong, just as it is obvious that the child's
parent is in the wrong in the footpath case.

That other video link:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8311279/Moment-cyclist-left-sprawling-floor-crashing-van-wrong.html

And I give you credit for that - I truly do.

All that you have said there is, of course, totally correct. Some
cases are so clear cut it is obvious who is in the wrong. Like that
child's parent was wrong in the footpath case. We were both in
agreement about that.

The only thing we really disagreed about, in that incident, was over
the quality of the response from the dogwalking man and whether he had
anything to learn from what had happened. So, was that just my bias
towards cyclists, that made me think that man should have responded
better? And was it your bias against cyclists that led you to believe
his response was nothing untoward?

Also, if I may be allowed to go on a little bit further because I
don't know the answer. It didn't seem from what was reported that the
social distancing regulations broken by the father and his daughter
were taken into account by the police. Do you think that the father's
rules breach was overridden by the outrage that the dogwalking man's
behaviour had caused on social media? For that was where all the
emphasis seemed to be.

On 17/05/2020 14:04, Pamela wrote:
On 10:24 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 17/05/2020 09:12, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

She's such a poor cyclist that she could easily have fallen over all
on her own, especially as her bike has no stabiliser wheels and she
can't use the brakes. If the father wants to train his daughter to
cycle, he should do it in his back garden rather than a public path
where she and he will inevitably closely approach members of the
public at a time of Covid distancing.

Yes, to all that. And if he didn't have a suitable back garden then,
as another poster on the group here as already said, with the benefit
of hindsight, he should have been doing all this in a more open space
rather than that narrow path which allowed his daughter no room for
error.

I don't agree that she didn't know how to control the bike.

Why didn't the little girl use the bike's brakes to stop when she found the
path ahead blocked?

Er... she had little experience of eventualities. There are loads of
Youtube videos showing that drivers several decades older don't have a clue.

She then attempted to squeeze into a gap between two people and fell over in
the process.

What she had
little experience with was about dealing with eventualities.

She had clearly done the stabiliser and back garden stuff. Besides,
anybody with experience of stabilisers knows that they only help before
balance is learnt and don't do anything about loss of control (if
anything, they make it worse).

She appears to have lost her balance when she tried to go between the two
people. Maybe she still needs her stabiliser wheels.

You clearly have no idea what stabilisers will and won't do.

On 14:33 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 17/05/2020 14:04, Pamela wrote:
On 10:24 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 17/05/2020 09:12, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

She's such a poor cyclist that she could easily have fallen over all
on her own, especially as her bike has no stabiliser wheels and she
can't use the brakes. If the father wants to train his daughter to
cycle, he should do it in his back garden rather than a public path
where she and he will inevitably closely approach members of the
public at a time of Covid distancing.

Yes, to all that. And if he didn't have a suitable back garden then,
as another poster on the group here as already said, with the benefit
of hindsight, he should have been doing all this in a more open space
rather than that narrow path which allowed his daughter no room for
error.

I don't agree that she didn't know how to control the bike.

Why didn't the little girl use the bike's brakes to stop when she found
the path ahead blocked?

Er... she had little experience of eventualities. There are loads of
Youtube videos showing that drivers several decades older don't have a
clue.

She then attempted to squeeze into a gap between two people and fell
over in the process.

What she had
little experience with was about dealing with eventualities.

The "eventuality" the little girl couldn't deal with was braking in time to
avoid hitting two people on a path.

She had clearly done the stabiliser and back garden stuff. Besides,
anybody with experience of stabilisers knows that they only help
before balance is learnt and don't do anything about loss of control
(if anything, they make it worse).

She appears to have lost her balance when she tried to go between the
two people. Maybe she still needs her stabiliser wheels.

You clearly have no idea what stabilisers will and won't do.

Immediately on passing the couple the girl loses her balance and falls off
her bike. She shouldn't be out amongst the public if she still needs her
training wheels to stay upright.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WPuOHvYGBC8

On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the girl
was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or skateboard and fell
over after being unable to slow down for a couple on the footpath? Would
they still think she and her father was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently they
do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

The non-cyclists will not allow discussion around their accepted
version. Doing so means an acceptance (or condoning) anti-social
behaviour, law breaking and so on. There is never a possibility of the
given version being a load of ********.

On Sun, 17 May 2020 10:22:57 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:41:02 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

These are mostly dated trolls. The was a major nym-
shifter.
I think the Judith troll now prefers ULM, but it might be here as
Pamela. I don't recall 'Marie'


Here is Marie, aka Judith.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...0/7kr5DEOO74cJ

ah, just another nym.

I'd forgotten about Trevor Panther; I guess he's not around any mo

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...cycling/trevor
$20panther/uk.rec.cycling/RO6Kd7CueaA/W8_g8gkDwN0J

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 5:38:00 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 10:22:57 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:41:02 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

These are mostly dated trolls. The was a major nym-
shifter.
I think the Judith troll now prefers ULM, but it might be here as
Pamela. I don't recall 'Marie'


Here is Marie, aka Judith.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...0/7kr5DEOO74cJ

ah, just another nym.

I'd forgotten about Trevor Panther; I guess he's not around any mo

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...cycling/trevor
$20panther/uk.rec.cycling/RO6Kd7CueaA/W8_g8gkDwN0J

Some more of the old crowd:

Guy Chapman, Simons B, M and W, Tom Crispin, Pete Biggs, the two Helens, Myra, Simon Ward (urc creator), Dave Hansen, John Mallard, Arthur Clune, thirty six,Tony
Raven, Pete Clinch, Jeremy Parker, James Thomson, Nick Kew, Colin Blackburn,
John Kane, Carol Hague, Tim Hall, Jacko, Ambrose Nankivell, M Series, Dave
Kahn, Phil Lee, Squashme, Tosspot, Rob and Ron, Roos Eisma, Danny Colyer,
Legs Larrington, Becka Currant, John Buckley, Paul xxx, Trevor Panther
(ret), Richard Bates, MBQ, Mark Williams, David Bentley, Doug, Mr Keller, Mr
Pounder, Dover's very own Front Mech and anyone else I have forgotten.

On 17/05/2020 14:47, Pamela wrote:
On 14:33 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 17/05/2020 14:04, Pamela wrote:
On 10:24 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 17/05/2020 09:12, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

She's such a poor cyclist that she could easily have fallen over all
on her own, especially as her bike has no stabiliser wheels and she
can't use the brakes. If the father wants to train his daughter to
cycle, he should do it in his back garden rather than a public path
where she and he will inevitably closely approach members of the
public at a time of Covid distancing.

Yes, to all that. And if he didn't have a suitable back garden then,
as another poster on the group here as already said, with the benefit
of hindsight, he should have been doing all this in a more open space
rather than that narrow path which allowed his daughter no room for
error.

I don't agree that she didn't know how to control the bike.

Why didn't the little girl use the bike's brakes to stop when she found
the path ahead blocked?

Er... she had little experience of eventualities. There are loads of
Youtube videos showing that drivers several decades older don't have a
clue.

She then attempted to squeeze into a gap between two people and fell
over in the process.

What she had
little experience with was about dealing with eventualities.

The "eventuality" the little girl couldn't deal with was braking in time to
avoid hitting two people on a path.

Anybody can operate a brake. Recognising a novel situation and taking
avoiding action are advanced skills.

Besides, it had nothing to with the brakes. The video shows she
initially stayed a good distance behind, matching their speed for 6 or 7
seconds. Her mistake was to close the gap thinking the couple were
letting her through.

She had clearly done the stabiliser and back garden stuff. Besides,
anybody with experience of stabilisers knows that they only help
before balance is learnt and don't do anything about loss of control
(if anything, they make it worse).

She appears to have lost her balance when she tried to go between the
two people. Maybe she still needs her stabiliser wheels.

You clearly have no idea what stabilisers will and won't do.

Immediately on passing the couple the girl loses her balance and falls off
her bike. She shouldn't be out amongst the public if she still needs her
training wheels to stay upright.

Did you read the sentence above your reply?

Simon Mason wrote:
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 5:38:00 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 10:22:57 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 10:41:02 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

These are mostly dated trolls. The was a major nym-
shifter.
I think the Judith troll now prefers ULM, but it might be here as
Pamela. I don't recall 'Marie'


Here is Marie, aka Judith.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...0/7kr5DEOO74cJ

ah, just another nym.

I'd forgotten about Trevor Panther; I guess he's not around any mo

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!se...cycling/trevor
$20panther/uk.rec.cycling/RO6Kd7CueaA/W8_g8gkDwN0J

Some more of the old crowd:

Guy Chapman, Simons B, M and W, Tom Crispin, Pete Biggs, the two
Helens, Myra, Simon Ward (urc creator), Dave Hansen, John Mallard,
Arthur Clune, thirty six,Tony Raven, Pete Clinch, Jeremy Parker,
James Thomson, Nick Kew, Colin Blackburn,
John Kane, Carol Hague, Tim Hall, Jacko, Ambrose Nankivell, M Series,
Dave
Kahn, Phil Lee, Squashme, Tosspot, Rob and Ron, Roos Eisma, Danny
Colyer,
Legs Larrington, Becka Currant, John Buckley, Paul xxx, Trevor
Panther (ret), Richard Bates, MBQ, Mark Williams, David Bentley,
Doug, Mr Keller, Mr
Pounder, Dover's very own Front Mech and anyone else I have forgotten.

That is sad.