Near miss

gillyboc

on my way to work the other day, just overtaking a parked vehicle when a bus decides
to overtake as well only he/she didn't seem to bothered about leaving room for me anyway when i got to work decided to ring bus company and complain about the driver, anyway have now been told the driver will be disciplined, just wondering what others think about this, i now feel guilty for getting this person a bollocking, plus he/she may travel his route regularly as i do which could of made things worse.

MrHulot

Guilty?? For getting some numpty in to a little bit of bother when they could have wiped you out?? Don't feel guilty for thinking your life might be valuable.

mrchrispy

done the same a couple of times and didnt feel a thing, it was report him of ram the bus up his ar5e. reporting is much better for the karma and criminal record

AndyManc

gillyboc wrote:

, i now feel guilty for getting this person a bollocking, plus he/she may travel his route regularly as i do which could of made things worse.

It won't happen , his boss will tell him .... ' next time run the b****** over '.

No employee gets a 'bollocking', well maybe if their employer is taken to court over an issue and has to fork out.

Eau Rouge

gillyboc wrote:

which could of made things worse.

or make them better if it serves as a timely reminder to all the companies drivers that they are driving lethal weapons and to give room to cyclists.

chrisberry

I nearly reported a McDonalds driver once (not for delivering dodgy burghers this time...)

He was so high up in the cab of his HGV he looked straight over the top of me and pulled out in front - he was turning left onto a main road.

Luckily I was practically stopped - I knew he hadn't seen me so I was ready.

The look on his face when I shouted "OI!" (his window was open) said it all - he looked mortified. Decided not to tell his boss.

Next time however.......

The Chingford Skinhead

As a professional driver s/he should be fully aware of other road users and their different vulnerabilities. By reporting the incident - and assuming the company has actually done something - you have done the driver, the company and the public a favour. Feel no guilt.

The driver (as would we all) will benefit from a reminder to be more cautious and mindful of other people. Even if they revert to old ways after a week - it is a week of better driving for us all.

The company because the last thing it needs is for one of its drivers to be in court on a charge of dangerous driving (reputation, bad press etc) and / or a vehicle off the road.

The public because road users like you will be safer and his/her passengers likewise.

spen666

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

You are the first person ever to point out this linguistic anomaly.

Feltup

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

You are the first person ever to point out this linguistic anomaly.

You live and you learn

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

You are the first person ever to point out this linguistic anomaly.

Linguistic anaomaly or simply wrong use of language

woodyonthebeach

Im convinced after this morning People must think I look good on the front of there cars.

Im thinking about going Chuck Norris on some of these drivers. Rig my bike up so it looks like it is from Delta Force films.

bluecow

spen666 wrote:

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Oh yeah...! I've never thought about that before. We have "near miss" reporting cards in our company... I may have to point this out at the next comms forum, just to be awkward
Nice one!

spen666

woodyonthebeach wrote:

Im convinced after this morning People must think I look good on the front of there cars.

...

I think you are right- perhaps its down to Jaguar/ Mercedes etc removing the icon on the bonnet and now people are wanting to replace them with us

Class Action against Jaguar/ Mercedes/ Rolls Royce etc anyone?

woodyonthebeach

spen666 wrote:

woodyonthebeach wrote:

Im convinced after this morning People must think I look good on the front of there cars.

...

I think you are right- perhaps its down to Jaguar/ Mercedes etc removing the icon on the bonnet and now people are wanting to replace them with us

Class Action against Jaguar/ Mercedes/ Rolls Royce etc anyone?

sounds like a good action action plan to me. lets sue them, its not like they are not short of a couple of quid

wgwarburton

spen666 writes:

> A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT
> you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Surely a "near miss" is differentiated from a "miss by a mile"? In purely physical terms a miss may be as good as a mile (though the perception is different...).

"Near miss" is approximately equivalent to "nearly hit", but "... nearly missed me" is a different outcome altogether...

Cheers,
W.

Eat My Dust

AndyManc wrote:

gillyboc wrote:

, i now feel guilty for getting this person a bollocking, plus he/she may travel his route regularly as i do which could of made things worse.

It won't happen , his boss will tell him .... ' next time run the b****** over '.

No employee gets a 'bollocking', well maybe if their employer is taken to court over an issue and has to fork out.

My brother owns a company that has about 20 vans on the road. I know for a fact he'd take it very seriously if someone complained about one of his drivers and wouldn't think twice about getting rid of them if it was a regular occurance.

spen666

WGWarburton wrote:

spen666 writes:

> A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT
> you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Surely a "near miss" is differentiated from a "miss by a mile"? In purely physical terms a miss may be as good as a mile (though the perception is different...).

"Near miss" is approximately equivalent to "nearly hit", but "... nearly missed me" is a different outcome altogether...

Cheers,
W.

what you describe is a near hit. A near miss is actually a hit, but one that only just occurred eg - he nearly missed me, but clipped me as he swung out

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT

you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Are "near miss" and "near hit" mutually exclusive? I would have thought that on the whole they mean the same thing.

W1

Yep, woman in a Beemer nearly took me out this moring - straight out of a side road and turning right accross me without looking. Dab of airhorn, sideways moment and she and I stop a foot away from each other. At least I got a "sorry" from her. Closest one for a while, if it had been wet that would have been a proper over-the-bonnet moment.

My sister got swiped last night by someone swerving into the cycle lane to undertake a car turning right. Clearly it's stupid week so be careful.

gradiric

You did the right thing - even if the driver doesn't get a bollocking this time, hopefully the company will keep a record of your complaint so that if there are other complaints about the same person, the pattern of poor driving will become clear.

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

spen666 writes:

> A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT
> you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Surely a "near miss" is differentiated from a "miss by a mile"? In purely physical terms a miss may be as good as a mile (though the perception is different...).

"Near miss" is approximately equivalent to "nearly hit", but "... nearly missed me" is a different outcome altogether...

Cheers,
W.

what you describe is a near hit. A near miss is actually a hit, but one that only just occurred eg - he nearly missed me, but clipped me as he swung out

Nope, I'm with buns on this one.

A near miss is a miss that was close (you know, near) as opposed to a miss which was not close!

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

spen666 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

spen666 writes:

> A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT
> you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Surely a "near miss" is differentiated from a "miss by a mile"? In purely physical terms a miss may be as good as a mile (though the perception is different...).

"Near miss" is approximately equivalent to "nearly hit", but "... nearly missed me" is a different outcome altogether...

Cheers,
W.

what you describe is a near hit. A near miss is actually a hit, but one that only just occurred eg - he nearly missed me, but clipped me as he swung out

Nope, I'm with buns on this one.

A near miss is a miss that was close (you know, near) as opposed to a miss which was not close!

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

I've been reading this all day, as a silent protest to the powers that be at work. Ah, my passive aggresive nature - will anyone notice...

I agree with LiT. But I think Spen is right.

A near miss is accepted and understood as refering to a person nearly hitting but in fact missing whatever it could have colided with.

Other than that I don't care. It was a near miss, in the context it was used the person was nearly hit but ultimately wasn't.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

spen666 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

spen666 writes:

> A NEAR MISS is surely a HIT
> you did not have a NEAR MISS, you had a NEAR HIT

Surely a "near miss" is differentiated from a "miss by a mile"? In purely physical terms a miss may be as good as a mile (though the perception is different...).

"Near miss" is approximately equivalent to "nearly hit", but "... nearly missed me" is a different outcome altogether...

Cheers,
W.

what you describe is a near hit. A near miss is actually a hit, but one that only just occurred eg - he nearly missed me, but clipped me as he swung out

Nope, I'm with buns on this one.

A near miss is a miss that was close (you know, near) as opposed to a miss which was not close!

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

I agree with LiT. But I think Spen is right.

I think Spen raises an interesting point but is also being a pedant just for the sake of it. Please note that I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing...

He's still wrong though.

Horton

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

Does that mean this is the wrong place to start the Monkey Vs Donkey debate?? (If you pronounce Monkey as Munkey, then surely you should pronounce Donkey as Dunkey or VV)

lost_in_thought

Horton wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

Does that mean this is the wrong place to start the Monkey Vs Donkey debate?? (If you pronounce Monkey as Munkey, then surely you should pronounce Donkey as Dunkey or VV)

Waiter ==> Waitress
Butter ==> Buttress
Matter ==> Mattress

Our language doesn't make sense. I love it.

biondino

Spen is wrong. If something doesn't hit you it can miss you by an infinite number of distances. He's using the "quite unique" or "nearly pregnant" argument. It's invalid in this case

Horton

lost_in_thought wrote:

Horton wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahhhh linguistic debate, the main reason why we post on a cycle commuting forum.

Does that mean this is the wrong place to start the Monkey Vs Donkey debate?? (If you pronounce Monkey as Munkey, then surely you should pronounce Donkey as Dunkey or VV)

Waiter ==> Waitress
Butter ==> Buttress
Matter ==> Mattress

Our language doesn't make sense. I love it.

I agree, it's cleverly designed to thoroughly confuse young people who, due to said confusion, have created a language of their own which unsurprisingly doesn't make any sense either.

For the record, I'm with Biondino (amongst others) on this.

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

Spen is wrong. If something doesn't hit you it can miss you by an infinite number of distances. He's using the "quite unique" or "nearly pregnant" argument. It's invalid in this case

My understanding

You either hit something or you don't. Simple physics can confirm this.

Technically speaking there is no such thing as a near miss. To nearly miss something, technically means you hit it.

But in spoken terms it actually means they were almost hit. Its a bit like an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms.

Yes I do think Spen is being a pedant for pedantic sake, but he's achieved something we are all debating it.

wgwarburton

Hi,
DDD writes:

> Technically speaking there is no such thing as a near miss. To nearly miss something, technically means you hit it.

I disagree. I don't think "near" and "nearly" mean the same thing. I think there are grammatical terms which describe the usage but I don't know what they are.

A near miss is a miss that was close to being a hit.

"Nearly missed" describes a hit that almost didn't happen.

A "near hit" doesn't make sense- whether you hit something a glancing blow or square on it's still a hit and can't be any closer or further away.

"Nearly hit" is fine- it's almost the same as "near miss", just as half-full is almost the same as half-empty.

Cheers,
W.

biondino

"To miss" (verb) is very different from "a miss" (noun), and I think this is where Spen is confusing people.

Using the pregnancy example. You can either be pregnant or not be pregnant; there is no grey, no middle ground. However, if you are pregnant, then you can be 10 weeks pregnant, or 38 weeks pregnant, which are different, and yet still defining the state of pregnancy (noun)!

So you can have a near miss, a distant miss, a scary miss, an embarrassing miss, a wise miss, whatever, because a miss (noun) is something that stands describing. "A near miss" doesn't mean "a hit" any more than "new pregnancy" means "no pregnancy".