Cyclist plague spreading

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 12:57

Dimple said:
It's not just me but other posters in this thread that have taken you to task over this because you're making out you have amazing super senses on the road.
As far as I know none of us have actually been in accidents but we know on occasions that no amount of being careful can cater for the idiot that suddenly left hooks.
You on the other hand can or at the very least if they left hook and you hit them then it would be your fault (or partly at least).
Stop being silly and just admit that yes, no matter how much being careful you can be there can be a situation where you get left hooked and it is 100% not your fault.

And plenty of others have seen and understood exactly the points I have been making and agreed with them.

I did not say at any point that you can avoid every accident...that is something you assumed...I do not know why, because I have said you cannot avoid everything often enough...I even said that if someone turns into you then it is their fault and you cant do much about it...I said that doesn't appear to be the case with the incdent in the OP, which you now agree with me on it seems...

Your response however illustrates that you do not fully understand my perspective and therefore are making assumptions that are not correct about it. Perhaps you can simply accept that I did not say or mean that 100% of accidents are avoidable, or that in 100% of case you are at least partially responsible, because regardless of how you are reading it, that is not what I meant or said.

I'm a little confused tbh, there seems to be some misunderstanding going on.

RetiredGreyFox · 14 Sep 2013 at 12:58

Castiel said:
Hmmm...this is basically what I have been saying ALL along.

please make your point without insults I have never been discussing this case.
I have been discussing your super powers that you claim to have and you know it.

Kenai · 14 Sep 2013 at 12:59

The unstoppable force and the immovable object in full effect here ladies and gentlemen, though the immovable object (dimple) is showing signs of strain.

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:02

Dimple said:
I have never been discussing this case.
I have been discussing your super powers that you claim to have and you know it.

Another insult...good stuff. I don't think it is necessary to add the insults really, if you cannot explain yourself or ask a question on my perspective without getting upset, perhaps you shouldn't ask at all.

Anyway You are it appears a very confused person if you thought that I claimed any such thing. It is not as if I have not clarified enough times.

And you initially responded to something I said about the incident (this case) in the OP:

Originally Posted by Castiel View Post
The cyclist should still have stopped, a cyclist is as responsible for anticipating other road users (and their idiocy) just as much as anyone else...he hit a stationary car, the car did not hit him.

so again, you seem to be rather confused at this juncture.

RetiredGreyFox · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:18

Castiel said:
Another insult...good stuff.

You are in fact a very confused person if you thought that I claimed any such thing.

Here you go, these are your words.

Castiel said:
If I was being overtaken by a car that then broke and turned into a drive then I would be at a safe distance from the car so I can stop, the car still has to pull into the lane in front after he has overtaken before he can turn into a drive at which point I would already be at a safe distance in order to stop before I hit him...if he turns into the drive before completing the overtaking manoeuvre then he hits me, not the other way around.

If you have been in the situations I've been in (and many others on here) then it wouldn't be your super powers that saved you but an act of God or the Easter Bunny.
Absolutely no amount of road awareness could prepare me for a car overtaking and then suddenly turning left in front of me and I honestly don't know how you can claim that you do know.
You are saying that every car that passes you, you make sure you are at a safe distance if something does happen.
So basically you ride along going "Ooh a car overtaking, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another car, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another lorry, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another white van careful make sure I've got 2 seconds" and so on ..............................

Redz · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:21

RetiredGreyFox · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:24

Redz said:

Yes I got him but he will say he never said it

Kenai · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:28

Personally not seeing anything wrong with what Castiel is saying.

As he has said MULTIPLE times, if someone turns across you before they've even properly completed the overtake leaving you zero reaction time then in effect they're hitting you not you hitting them and that's unavoidable.

Any normal circumstances you should be maintaining a safe gap, again as he has explained MULTIPLE times.

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:37

Dimple said:
Here you go, these are your words.

If you have been in the situations I've been in (and many others on here) then it wouldn't be your super powers that saved you but an act of God or the Easter Bunny.
Absolutely no amount of road awareness could prepare me for a car overtaking and then suddenly turning left in front of me and I honestly don't know how you can claim that you do know.
You are saying that every car that passes you, you make sure you are at a safe distance if something does happen.
So basically you ride along going "Ooh a car overtaking, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another car, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another lorry, careful make sure I've got that 2 seconds, ooh another white van careful make sure I've got 2 seconds" and so on ..............................

you are clearly not reading it correctly....I have said that if he turns before completing the overtaking manoeuvre then you will not necessarily have time to react. If he has completed the overtaking, then you should be at a safe distance, is that not simply common sense?

As for the second part....please refer to an earlier reply where I clarified that for someone else.

It appears (and unlike you I do not automatically assume this is what your intention was) that you are saying that you only need to pay attention to the first car that overtakes you and that you have a safe distance, and not any subsequent car that does...That, if that is what you are saying, seems to be a little irresponsible, surely you should endeavour to ensure a safe distance from the car in front, regardless if it is the first or last car that has overtaken you?

Kenai said:
Personally not seeing anything wrong with what Castiel is saying.

As he has said MULTIPLE times, if someone turns across you before they've even properly completed the overtake leaving you zero reaction time then in effect they're hitting you not you hitting them and that's unavoidable.

Any normal circumstances you should be maintaining a safe gap, again as he has explained MULTIPLE times.

Exactly, I cannot understand why Dimple doesn't understand this is what I mean.

Tefal · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:38

i've just noticed that though half of the thread people are randomly changing wheather castiel is in his car or o na bike when talking about over taking

RetiredGreyFox · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:38

Kenai said:
Personally not seeing anything wrong with what Castiel is saying.

As he has said MULTIPLE times, if someone turns across you before they've even properly completed the overtake leaving you zero reaction time then in effect they're hitting you not you hitting them and that's unavoidable.

Any normal circumstances you should be maintaining a safe gap, again as he has explained MULTIPLE times.

You only have two scenarios here for a left hook but there are 4 I can think of:

1) Left hook but driver hits you before completing the overtake
2) Left hook after just getting past but God knows how you didn't slam into the side of the vehicle and it wasn't your cycling skills or amazing awareness that prevented it
3) Left hook and you do slam into the side of the vehicle because no time has been given to take action (is this partly your fault? I think not).
4) Left hook but you did have adequate time.

On a weekly basis I have a number 2 (ooh err) occur.

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:50

Dimple said:
You only have two scenarios here for a left hook but there are 4 I can think of:

1) Left hook but driver hits you before completing the overtake
2) Left hook after just getting past but God knows how you didn't slam into the side of the vehicle and it wasn't your cycling skills or amazing awareness that prevented it
3) Left hook and you do slam into the side of the vehicle because no time has been given to take action (is this partly your fault? I think not).
4) Left hook but you did have adequate time.

On a weekly basis I have a number 2 (ooh err) occur.

In examples 1and 3, you have no chance, no amount of preparation would ensure you can avoid a collision...in example 2, you have a chance, but your options are limited and it would depend on other factors such as road conditions, speed of the incident and exactly how close the car passes in front of you, although you could still have some control over the seriousness of the collision if you are aware of the risk it would in all likelihood be the fault of the car driver...in example 4 then you could be also have a responsibility as there should be plenty of time to stop.

I would say that example 2 is not, in my opinion completing the overtaking manoeuvre, and therefore in my opinion would count as the driver hitting you rather than you hitting the car.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Kenai · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:51

Dimple said:
You only have two scenarios here for a left hook but there are 4 I can think of:

1) Left hook but driver hits you before completing the overtake
2) Left hook after just getting past but God knows how you didn't slam into the side of the vehicle and it wasn't your cycling skills or amazing awareness that prevented it
3) Left hook and you do slam into the side of the vehicle because no time has been given to take action (is this partly your fault? I think not).
4) Left hook but you did have adequate time.

On a weekly basis I have a number 2 (ooh err) occur.

1 2 and 3 would all fall under 'before the overtake is completed' as far as I see it, they're turning in front of you and there is literally no time for you to do anything about it, then they've clearly not finished the overtake properly because they'd be far enough up the road for this not to present a problem to you if they had.

4 is a 'left hook' and it's annoying and inconsiderate behaviour from the driver but if you have time and were still to hit them, it would be your own fault somewhat (or at the very least preventable if people are going to kick off about the word fault).

That's all I can see that Castiel has been saying frankly.

edit - and boom, just like that I respond exactly the same as Castiel has to your list, so maybe you and others ARE just struggling to comprehend his position somewhat, rather than him being pathetic and a stupid man.

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:52

Tefal said:
i've just noticed that though half of the thread people are randomly changing wheather castiel is in his car or o na bike when talking about over taking

which is really confusing...I am trying to keep up, but if I have missed the context on occasion, that may go some-way to explain some peoples confusion.

I've got a headache...

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:52

Kenai said:
1 2 and 3 would all fall under 'before the overtake is completed' as far as I see it, they're turning in front of you and there is literally no time for you to do anything about it, then they've clearly not finished the overtake properly because they'd be far enough up the road for this not to present a problem to you if they had.

4 is a 'left hook' but you had time to react then it's annoying but if you have time and were still to hit them, it would be your own fault.

That's all I can see that Castiel has been saying frankly.

hallelujah....

Tefal · 14 Sep 2013 at 13:57

Castiel said:
which is really confusing...I am trying to keep up, but if I have missed the context on occasion, that may go some-way to explain some peoples confusion.

I've got a headache...

heh yeah i've just realized several times i thought you were being utterly silly, you were actually being on about a bike rather than car, and vis versa

RetiredGreyFox · 14 Sep 2013 at 14:03

Castiel said:
hallelujah....

Well if you are now saying that 1, 2 & 3 are genuine left hooks that you can't cater for and you have always been saying that then I apologise however it hasn't come over like that.
It honestly sounded that you claim you are aware of everything and that 2 & 3 would be partly the cyclists fault.

I agree that on the facts we know it does sound in the OP that the cyclist didn't look and slammed into a parked car.

Funnily enough I've just been looking at left hooks on You Tube and the majority I watched are a number 4 but there are a couple of number 2's.

Kenai · 14 Sep 2013 at 14:13

Dimple said:
Well if you are now saying that 1, 2 & 3 are genuine left hooks that you can't cater for and you have always been saying that then I apologise however it hasn't come over like that.

In fairness, he has been saying that all along, not just 'now', but no one seemed to be reading what he was actually saying about how that is effectively more someone hitting you than you hitting them.

Castiel · 14 Sep 2013 at 14:16

Dimple said:
Well if you are now saying that 1, 2 & 3 are genuine left hooks that you can't cater for and you have always been saying that then I apologise however it hasn't come over like that.
It honestly sounded that you claim you are aware of everything and that 2 & 3 would be partly the cyclists fault.

That was never my intention. The Internet can be frustrating sometimes when explaining or understanding a point of view.

Dimple said:
I agree that on the facts we know it does sound in the OP that the cyclist didn't look and slammed into a parked car.

This is how I see it also, although the Driver was also in the wrong for parking illegally and withholding his details...

Phantom Shadow · 14 Sep 2013 at 14:53

Dimple said:
Funnily enough I've just been looking at left hooks on You Tube and the majority I watched are a number 4 but there are a couple of number 2's.

I'm sure most videos on youtube from cyclists are like this, it seems that because they have a camera they become unable to take avoiding action as "the camera is recording you, it was all your fault" seems to be the cyclists opinion.

So with the evidence we now have, cyclist was pretty stupid to turn into a parked car out of a t junction. Driver was quite stupid thinking he wouldn't be traced being a public figure in an unusual car. Was probably silly to give the comment of "sorry I didn't see you" as to the cyclist that could have been admitted guilt even though it would appear to have been the cyclists fault.