Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 21:45 13 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 8:48:23 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

I feel sorry for the lovely dog being walked by the couple when the
little girl stoved into them.

You mean the potty mouthed thug that told a 6 year old girl that "he
could not give a f***" after he had kicked her Barbie bike? Why feel
sorry for that thicko uncouth chav?

He seems a decent fellow who was out for a peaceful walk while minding his
own business.

A gobby chav rushing up behind him says "excuse me" and soon after the chav's
unsupervised daughter rides her bike into the decent fellow and his wife.

Despite allegations to the contrary, the decent chap doesn't kick her off the
bike and he doesn't swear at her. See it he

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuOHvYGBC8

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 11:11:18 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

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

Indeed. One wonders why the chavvy thug felt the need to kick her bike and then tell her to her face that he quote "Couldn't give a f***"?"

What a shining example of adult behaviour he must be.

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 12:20:09 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

A gobby chav rushing up behind him says:

" I couldn't give a f***"

Spot on for once.

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 12:10:12 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

Okay, but that's a problem for the driver. Why should the cyclist have
to determine what speed they are travelling at? They are not the ones
wondering whether it is safe or not to cross a double white line.

The driver was reprimanded for not giving the cyclist 1.5m clearance as he passed by as well as crossing the unbroken white line. It was NOT safe to overtake there for all sorts of reasons.

On Thursday, 14 May 2020 11:39:10 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2020 06:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 19:43:08 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 17:57 13 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

A copy of the Highway Code has been sent to the motorist QUOTE: This
photograph shows the moment a car almost crashed into an oncoming
vehicle while overtaking a cyclist.

Police issued the dramatic picture today (May 12) to warn other
motorists against overtaking cyclists on double white lines, especially
when they have no view of traffic ahead. The driver was also criticised
for not leaving the required 1.5 metres between a bike and car.

A spokesperson for Avon and Somerset Police road safety team posted on
Twitter : "Don't be this guy! Luckily everyone OK.

"No view: No overtake. "Give cyclists room: At least 1.5m

"Don't overtake on double whites unless bike 10mph or less!

"Motorist will be receiving a reminder of the Highway Code in the post."

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/l...r-almost-hits-
oncoming-4127743

One respondent says:

"When I pass cyclists i make sure i pass as close as i can to the
cyclist. Even in my lorry. Horrible cretins."

A clear admission of multiple accounts of attempted murder. I assume the respondent is serving (self funded) life in prison.

Hardly.

See if you can tell where you went wrong.

I am aware cyclist's taxes have to pay for scum like this to loaf in prison.

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 and have no
idea what's happening behind them. The runaway child then crashes her
bike into them.

See it at 30 secs he https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPuOHvYGBC8

The girl can't control her bike well enough to slow down and stop
properly. She also shows poor judgement by attempting to pass through a
gap too small.

The father should not have let her ride in public until she was more
experienced. Cycling in the back garden seems more appropriate.

The father then harrasses the couple that they did not take over his
parenting responsibilities and look after his child when she was out of
control.

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

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.

Children need to experience what it is like to fall off a low wall to
understand the problems of falling off a high wall.

There is one poster here that tried to put forward the ridiculous idea
that it was like a driver passing close to a cyclist. It's like claiming
that walls are all the same height.

On 14/05/2020 12:10, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

It's a while since the issue was discussed here, but 10mph is a
difficult speed to measure accurately on ordinary instrumentation. The
cyclist is unlikely to have any immediately accessible way of measuring
speed at all and motor vehicle speedometers are only approximate at that
sort of speed (many have no gradated visual calibration below 20). The
speed may have to be estimated.

In the last 20 years I haven't had a car with a speedometer that isn't
fully graduated going down to 0mph and doesn't work any differently at 5
or 10mph than it does at any other speed.

Okay, but that's a problem for the driver. Why should the cyclist have
to determine what speed they are travelling at? They are not the ones
wondering whether it is safe or not to cross a double white line.

Don't be sensible.

On 12:21 14 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 11:11:18 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

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

Indeed. One wonders why the chavvy thug felt the need to kick her bike
and then tell her to her face that he quote "Couldn't give a f***"?"

What a shining example of adult behaviour he must be.

The decent fellow probably told the gobby chav father that he "Couldn't give
a ****" probably because he couldn't give a **** what he was demanding.

Gobby chavs should realise the world does not have to jump out of the way of
a runaway child just because her parents were not looking after her and
failing to meet the 2 metre distance required for Covid.

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.