Anti-social behaviour

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>,
MrBitsy <[email protected]> writes
>You should have been reacting before you did - you knew the corner was
>there, you knew the overtaker was there AND you knew the cars behind
>had closed any escape route!
>
>> The idiot just squeezed in by forcing the oncoming car into the verge;
>
>
>Well, what did you expect?
How about the over taker dropping swiftly back to his original position
in the queue?
--
Clive

 

[Geoff Lane]

Clive <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> How about the over taker dropping swiftly back to his original position
> in the queue?

He was fourth vehicle back at the start of the incident - so he'd already
overtaken three vehicles, and at least the two behind me had closed the
gaps. So, he had nowhere to go.

I'd have slowed down earlier but we were on a left-hand bend and so by
the time I got sight of what this idiot was doing, my tailgater was in
the process of closing the gap even further. All I could do was maintain
speed because even lifting off the throttle would almost certainly have
caused a collision.

When a collision was inevitable, I did what I could to mitigate the
situation. A head-on was avoided, but the innocent oncoming driver was
forced off the road; my (not so innocent) tailgater had minor damage
front and back; and his tailgater had minor damage to his front. I lost
£3.50's-worth of towball cover. FWIW, the idot (in a red R-reg Rover 420)
got away scot-free and didn't even stop.

BTW, In answer to MrBitsy's:

> Well, well, well - who is the idiot here I wonder?

I respectively suggest that he who passes judgement without full
knowledge of the facts would be the most likely candidate!

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

 

[MrBitsy]

Geoff Lane <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Clive <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> How about the over taker dropping swiftly back to his original
>> position in the queue?
>
> He was fourth vehicle back at the start of the incident - so he'd
> already overtaken three vehicles, and at least the two behind me had
> closed the gaps. So, he had nowhere to go.
>
> I'd have slowed down earlier but we were on a left-hand bend and so by
> the time I got sight of what this idiot was doing, my tailgater was in
> the process of closing the gap even further. All I could do was
> maintain speed because even lifting off the throttle would almost
> certainly have caused a collision.
>
> When a collision was inevitable, I did what I could to mitigate the
> situation. A head-on was avoided, but the innocent oncoming driver was
> forced off the road; my (not so innocent) tailgater had minor damage
> front and back; and his tailgater had minor damage to his front. I
> lost £3.50's-worth of towball cover. FWIW, the idot (in a red R-reg
> Rover 420) got away scot-free and didn't even stop.
>
> BTW, In answer to MrBitsy's:
>
>> Well, well, well - who is the idiot here I wonder?
>
> I respectively suggest that he who passes judgement without full
> knowledge of the facts would be the most likely candidate!

Well, I wasn't refering to you for a start, rather the people behind
closing the gaps!

As for slowing down, you should have done that WAY, WAY before the car
behind got that close. All of you made the situation worse by waiting so
long before reacting.



--
MrBitsy

 

[Geoff Lane]

MrBitsy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>> Well, well, well - who is the idiot here I wonder?
>>
>> I respectively suggest that he who passes judgement without full
>> knowledge of the facts would be the most likely candidate!
>
> Well, I wasn't refering to you for a start, rather the people behind
> closing the gaps!
>
> As for slowing down, you should have done that WAY, WAY before the car
> behind got that close. All of you made the situation worse by waiting
> so long before reacting.

.... and again you're passing judgement without full knowledge of the
facts.

You say that you're not referring to me - but in your previous post you
consistently addressed me in the second person: "You new (sic) the
car.."; "You sould have been reacting ..."; "Well, what did you expect
....". FWIW, you're doing it again here. You wrote, "All of you", which
includes me. If you didn't want to include me, you should have written,
"All of them". Additionally, I was the only one who could have been
accused of "waiting" because everyone else took action: the numpties
closed the gaps. So, I could only read your post as a direct and personal
attack.

One way of dealing with tailgaters is to open a gap ahead so that you
don't have to brake sharply *under foreseeable circumstances*. IOW, if
the tailgater won't give himself enough space, you need to make the space
for him. Under normal circumstances, you are then able to brake gently
enough to avoid a collision. A gap of that size was already present - I'd
made sure of that. Also, there was a solid white line on my side of the
median, so any overtaking by the vehicles behind was illegal anyway. IMO,
there is a limit to how much idiocy you can reasonably anticipate - and
the guy in the red 420 exceeded that by a long way.

Oh .. one other thing that I hadn't mentioned before is that I wasn't
driving a car. I was driving a small van within its speed limit, which
is 50 mph on NSL single-carriageways, not the 60 mph of the vehicles
following me. I maintain that if I hadn't obeyed the speed limit - i.e.
if having opened the gap I'd been doing 60 mph - the accident would
never have happened.

--
Geoff Lane
Cornwall, UK

 

[MrBitsy]

Geoff Lane <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> MrBitsy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>>> Well, well, well - who is the idiot here I wonder?
>>>
>>> I respectively suggest that he who passes judgement without full
>>> knowledge of the facts would be the most likely candidate!
>>
>> Well, I wasn't refering to you for a start, rather the people behind
>> closing the gaps!
>>
>> As for slowing down, you should have done that WAY, WAY before the
>> car behind got that close. All of you made the situation worse by
>> waiting so long before reacting.
>
> ... and again you're passing judgement without full knowledge of the
> facts.
>
> You say that you're not referring to me - but in your previous post
> you consistently addressed me in the second person: "You new (sic) the
> car.."; "You sould have been reacting ..."; "Well, what did you expect
> ...". FWIW, you're doing it again here. You wrote, "All of you", which
> includes me. If you didn't want to include me, you should have
> written, "All of them". Additionally, I was the only one who could
> have been accused of "waiting" because everyone else took action: the
> numpties closed the gaps. So, I could only read your post as a direct
> and personal attack.

Direct and personal attack? Blimey, a little overboard methinks!

> One way of dealing with tailgaters is to open a gap ahead so that you
> don't have to brake sharply *under foreseeable circumstances*. IOW, if
> the tailgater won't give himself enough space, you need to make the
> space for him. Under normal circumstances, you are then able to brake
> gently enough to avoid a collision. A gap of that size was already
> present - I'd made sure of that. Also, there was a solid white line on
> my side of the median, so any overtaking by the vehicles behind was
> illegal anyway. IMO, there is a limit to how much idiocy you can
> reasonably anticipate - and the guy in the red 420 exceeded that by a
> long way.

Previously, you described seeing the overtake start, the vehicle
overtaking, approaching a bend, tailgaters and no gap for the overtaker
to move into. That is a lot of evidence for a possible bad situation to
develop.

I think it is reasonable for you to have taken action previous to when
you did, after all its not about who is in the wrong - its about staying
alive.

> Oh .. one other thing that I hadn't mentioned before is that I wasn't
> driving a car. I was driving a small van within its speed limit, which
> is 50 mph on NSL single-carriageways, not the 60 mph of the vehicles
> following me. I maintain that if I hadn't obeyed the speed limit -
> i.e. if having opened the gap I'd been doing 60 mph - the accident
> would never have happened.

You don't know that - the other vehicle may still have tried to overtake
you all.



--
MrBitsy

 

[Martin]

>>
>>
>> Can't see it happening round here. More likely to get hurt by a
>> rampaging usenet mob on bicycles ;-)
>>
>
> Actually, since you mention it, you are far less likely to be hurt or
> killed by a cyclist in the UK than be shot or assaulted but far more
> likely to be killed by a motorist than be shot or assaulted.

True, but you are very likely to get really cheesed off by those cyclists
who think pedalling along two abreast is a "Good thing."

Martin

 

[Tony Raven]

Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>Can't see it happening round here. More likely to get hurt by a
>>>rampaging usenet mob on bicycles ;-)
>>>
>>
>>Actually, since you mention it, you are far less likely to be hurt or
>>killed by a cyclist in the UK than be shot or assaulted but far more
>>likely to be killed by a motorist than be shot or assaulted.
>
>
> True, but you are very likely to get really cheesed off by those cyclists
> who think pedalling along two abreast is a "Good thing."
>

Or really cheesed off by all those motorists who think being queued up
line astern is a "Good thing"

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Tony W]

"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> True, but you are very likely to get really cheesed off by those cyclists
> who think pedalling along two abreast is a "Good thing."

Yes -- this would really cheesed me off -- trouble is I cannot think of an
occasion when I've been significantly delayed by it in 30+ years of driving
15+ kmiles per year.

Maybe it is a serious problem where you live though.

I was once held up by a cycle race -- but I was cycling (not in the race) at
the time and have twice been caught out by unanticipated carnivals.

 

[Nobody Here]

Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> True, but you are very likely to get really cheesed off by those cyclists
>> who think pedalling along two abreast is a "Good thing."
>
> Yes -- this would really cheesed me off -- trouble is I cannot think of an
> occasion when I've been significantly delayed by it in 30+ years of driving
> 15+ kmiles per year.
>
> Maybe it is a serious problem where you live though.

Perhaps it is. I could, if pressed, think of several occasions in about
the same amount of driving in which I've been delayed by quite some
seconds. If you added it all up, it'd be several _tens of seconds_ of my
life I've wasted behind cycles. It's a serious problem, and I think that
the government should be building more cycle lanes to get the pesky
blighters off our roads. I mean, the hours every month I'm held up by
other traffic is OK, at least they've all paid their road tax and insurance.
Well, most of them anyway, and they *never* drive on the pavement.


--
Nobby

 

[Grimsdale]

In message <[email protected]>,
Nobody Here <[email protected]> writes
>It's a serious problem, and I think that the government should be
>building more cycle lanes to get the pesky blighters off our roads.

Once they start cycling, it's a slippery slope. You only have to look
at the top two items on the BBC NI News in Brief today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4578695.stm

--------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a robbery at a post office in east Belfast.

Two youths, one who may have had an imitation firearm, entered the
premises on the Belmont Road at about 1040 BST.

They broke a security screen and made off on push bikes with a sum of
money.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Object thrown at car from bridge

A motorist had a lucky escape after an object thrown from a bridge hit
his windscreen, police have said.

It happened as he drove under a bridge at Mountsandel Road, Coleraine,
at 2010 BST on Thursday.

The youth dropped an object which damaged the windscreen of the car
before cycling towards the town centre.

Police at Coleraine want to hear from anyone who can help to identify
the youth who is described as being 4ft 6ins tall, thin and with blond
hair.
--
Grimsdale

 

[John Hearns]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 11:22:38 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:

>
> I don't like neds, but acknowledging that we are so afraid of them that
> we're prepared to deny them the ability to exist in public doesn't strike
> me as a good long term solution.
>
> "When they came for the..." anyone?
>
> Jon

Would you all please read this article carefully before
spouting off about 15 year olds being banned from the streets.

http://tinyurl.com/8ob76

The order permits the police to ask persons they beleive are acting
in a threatening manner to leave the area.