Altercation with a Scooter rider
Comments
-
Who's been Wiggled then?
0 -
There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primative brain reaction. When you give someone a fright its the low level agygdala that reacts. Its not rational, logical or considered and it has no ability to tell the difference between a minor or major risk.0
-
bernithebiker wrote:Navrig wrote:
Are you familiar with the phrase "cause and effect"?
The streetwise translation would be "who started it?"
So if you spill my pint down the pub, is it OK if I shove the broken glass in your face?Navrig wrote:? - that's up to you but keep in mind that if you draft any powered vehicle it is unlikely that you will cause the occupants any physical damage if they have to stop quicker than you. However if you impale yourself on the vehicle you are likely to cause them severe mental trauma. That doesn't seem fair to me. How do you see it?
Not much more to be said.
Except is bernithebiker the new Speed King?
Try not to choke on your coffee, but I used to hang on to Routemaster buses 20 years ago when I commuted into London, mostly going up Park Lane. I have since drafted a variety of machinery, including combine harvesters, HGV's and various tractors. Been OK so far, I'd like to think a 6kg bike can stop faster than a 5 tonne tractor. Irresponsible? Yes. Is it fun? Yes. On a recent club ride, 10 of us drafted a tractor at 40km/h for 8km, so it's not just me that's a bit nuts.
And I would think that if I did impale myself on the back of a tractor, the farmer would pick me off and think 'Stupid git'.
No idea who Speed King is.
So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.0 -
Someone in the corner of your eye pretends to whack you and you instinctively raise your arm in self-defence and whack them in the process would come into this category.diy wrote:There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primitive brain reaction.
The turning round and driving back at the OP intending either to hit him or only just miss him is nothing of the sort and justifies all kinds of revenge attacks.
Any suggestion otherwise is complete bollox. People get too damn angry these days, and use it as justification for all sorts of neanderthal behaviour.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
That assumes that this part of the story was actually as told, or was in reality probably subject to a little embellishment as is the want of the type who would have posted this in the first placeChrisAOnABike wrote:
Someone in the corner of your eye pretends to whack you and you instinctively raise your arm in self-defence and whack them in the process would come into this category.diy wrote:There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primitive brain reaction.
The turning round and driving back at the OP intending either to hit him or only just miss him is nothing of the sort and justifies all kinds of revenge attacks.
Any suggestion otherwise is complete bollox. People get too damn angry these days, and use it as justification for all sorts of neanderthal behaviour.0 -
So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.0 -
[/quote]mattv wrote:... Hell, he even did what you are TAUGHT in a car: slow down if you have a small gap and tailgating...
[/quote][/quote]. Is that right, you are taught to do that, if you are being tailgated?
I don't quite get what you mean. If you are being followed too closely and there is no nearside lane to move into; then gentle deceleration is the best option. If you don't show brake lights reasonable people just slow down. Increasing speed increases danger, whilst maintaining the same speed does nothing to reduce the danger. Why would you not want to be safer?
In my experience most (not all) people tail-gate because they aren't paying enough attention, not that they are trying to force the driver in front to speed up.0 -
NewTTer wrote:
That assumes that this part of the story was actually as told, or was in reality probably subject to a little embellishment as is the want of the type who would have posted this in the first placeChrisAOnABike wrote:
Someone in the corner of your eye pretends to whack you and you instinctively raise your arm in self-defence and whack them in the process would come into this category.diy wrote:There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primitive brain reaction.
The turning round and driving back at the OP intending either to hit him or only just miss him is nothing of the sort and justifies all kinds of revenge attacks.
Any suggestion otherwise is complete bollox. People get too damn angry these days, and use it as justification for all sorts of neanderthal behaviour.
Oh please, I have better things to do than invent stories for Bikeradar;
Firstly, he braked very hard, to try to get me to crash into him, which, partly, I did. I saw a puff of smoke from his back tyre.
Secondly, he did a U-turn from 200m away, and came directly for me as fast as he could. I cannot say for sure if would have hit me or not, but I decided a step to the right was a wise course of action; I could easily have touched him when he went past.
I've been truly surprised by some of the reactions here; what's my motive? Motive = share what I thought was an interesting story on a forum - I shall refrain from doing so in the future.
Why was I provoking him and being so aggressive and dangerous? I consider what I did to have been pretty harmless, in good spirits and certainly not worthy of the violent reaction that I got. I don't really get the people focusing on the drafting when some young psychopath is looking like he wants to kill you. But hey, it's a public forum, think what you like.0 -
At least something worthwhile has come out of your willy waving post then!bernithebiker wrote:NewTTer wrote:
That assumes that this part of the story was actually as told, or was in reality probably subject to a little embellishment as is the want of the type who would have posted this in the first placeChrisAOnABike wrote:
Someone in the corner of your eye pretends to whack you and you instinctively raise your arm in self-defence and whack them in the process would come into this category.diy wrote:There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primitive brain reaction.
The turning round and driving back at the OP intending either to hit him or only just miss him is nothing of the sort and justifies all kinds of revenge attacks.
Any suggestion otherwise is complete bollox. People get too damn angry these days, and use it as justification for all sorts of neanderthal behaviour.
Oh please, I have better things to do than invent stories for Bikeradar;
Firstly, he braked very hard, to try to get me to crash into him, which, partly, I did. I saw a puff of smoke from his back tyre.
Secondly, he did a U-turn from 200m away, and came directly for me as fast as he could. I cannot say for sure if would have hit me or not, but I decided a step to the right was a wise course of action; I could easily have touched him when he went past.
I've been truly surprised by some of the reactions here; what's my motive? Motive = share what I thought was an interesting story on a forum - I shall refrain from doing so in the future.
Why was I provoking him and being so aggressive and dangerous? I consider what I did to have been pretty harmless, in good spirits and certainly not worthy of the violent reaction that I got. I don't really get the people focusing on the drafting when some young psychopath is looking like he wants to kill you. But hey, it's a public forum, think what you like.0 -
Erm...what has this got to do with anything?thiscocks wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
Why do you think they haven't changed for years? Do you not think maybe the size of the vehicle has something to do with this?0 -
DaveP1 wrote:mattv wrote:... Hell, he even did what you are TAUGHT in a car: slow down if you have a small gap and tailgating...
Is that right, you are taught to do that, if you are being tailgated?
Correct.
I was involved in an RTA a few years ago and was sent on an 'accident awareness course', my instructor was an advanced driving instructor, police driving instructor and had more instructors qualifications than you could shake a stick at (that's a lot, by the way). We were taught "trailering" should we be in a situation where we were being tailgated. The idea being that you gently slow so that you increase the gap between you and the vehicle in front. That way, if they brake suddenly, you don't have to do the same and can hopefully, avoid your tailgater from driving into the back of you.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
DaveP1 wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.
I would have thought that drafting a bus at speed, factoring in reaction times (especially given likely position relative to lights etc), relative weights, and grip, associated frictional force, the bus would win every time.
Personally, I would never want to find out.0 -
It is an interesting story, The most interesting part though is your total inability to recognise that you caused the incident. Let me point out again NO-ONE HAS SAID THE GUY'S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED.bernithebiker wrote:I've been truly surprised by some of the reactions here; what's my motive? Motive = share what I thought was an interesting story on a forum - I shall refrain from doing so in the future.
Can you really not understand why someone on a scooter might not like you sprinting up to sit on their wheel? It is rude and disrespectful at best, and a strange thing to happen. What did you expect? When we ride together or motorpace, the rider in front takes special care and responsibility for the rider behind: is this what he should have done for you, so you could show off to your mates? Because when he didn't, you shouted at him :roll:bernithebiker wrote:Why was I provoking him and being so aggressive and dangerous? I consider what I did to have been pretty harmless, in good spirits and certainly not worthy of the violent reaction that I got. I don't really get the people focusing on the drafting when some young psychopath is looking like he wants to kill you. But hey, it's a public forum, think what you like.
We are focussing on YOUR actions because we are talking to YOU.0 -
DaveP1 wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.
You are probably right you have not been outbraked by a bus/car/tractor or whatever but that is probably because they have never really slammed the anchors on and carried out an emergency stop. It is relatively easy for a bike to do a near emergency stop without causing the rider or others problems. If you did it in a vehicle without justification you would cause chaos.
I for one would not want to be tailgating a motorised vehicle on my bike when that vehicle performs an emergency stop. You will not stop before hitting the vehicle.0 -
MattC59 wrote:DaveP1 wrote:mattv wrote:... Hell, he even did what you are TAUGHT in a car: slow down if you have a small gap and tailgating...
Is that right, you are taught to do that, if you are being tailgated?
Correct.
I was involved in an RTA a few years ago and was sent on an 'accident awareness course', my instructor was an advanced driving instructor, police driving instructor and had more instructors qualifications than you could shake a stick at (that's a lot, by the way). We were taught "trailering" should we be in a situation where we were being tailgated. The idea being that you gently slow so that you increase the gap between you and the vehicle in front. That way, if they brake suddenly, you don't have to do the same and can hopefully, avoid your tailgater from driving into the back of you.
Sorry Matt, I thought you were saying that if you were being tailgated, you were taught to slow down; seemed wrong to me!0 -
The way I read it, he is saying that.DaveP1 wrote:MattC59 wrote:DaveP1 wrote:mattv wrote:... Hell, he even did what you are TAUGHT in a car: slow down if you have a small gap and tailgating...
Is that right, you are taught to do that, if you are being tailgated?
Correct.
I was involved in an RTA a few years ago and was sent on an 'accident awareness course', my instructor was an advanced driving instructor, police driving instructor and had more instructors qualifications than you could shake a stick at (that's a lot, by the way). We were taught "trailering" should we be in a situation where we were being tailgated. The idea being that you gently slow so that you increase the gap between you and the vehicle in front. That way, if they brake suddenly, you don't have to do the same and can hopefully, avoid your tailgater from driving into the back of you.
Sorry Matt, I thought you were saying that if you were being tailgated, you were taught to slow down; seemed wrong to me!0 -
Tom Dean wrote:Let me point out again NO-ONE HAS SAID THE GUY'S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED.
I would say that's highly debatable, reading back through some of the Daily Mail-esque replies.Tom Dean wrote:Can you really not understand why someone on a scooter might not like you sprinting up to sit on their wheel? It is rude and disrespectful at best, and a strange thing to happen.
Do I understand why he got so totally pissed off? No, not really. Mild annoyance, OK fine. If it had been me on the scooter, I would have found it quite amusing to see how long the cyclist could stay with me.Tom Dean wrote:What did you expect? When we ride together or motorpace, the rider in front takes special care and responsibility for the rider behind: is this what he should have done for you, so you could show off to your mates? Because when he didn't, you shouted at him :roll:
Mates there or not, I still would have done it because riding your bike uphills at 40km/h for minimal effort is fun. Again, each to his own, but I know I'm not the only one.
I shouted at him because he tried to get me to crash into him, not because he wasn't motorpacing quite to my liking.Tom Dean wrote:We are focussing on YOUR actions because we are talking to YOU.
So ignore all other aspects of the story and focus just on me. Odd. Maybe my story should just have been; 'I drafted a scooter today'.0 -
pkripper wrote:DaveP1 wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.
I would have thought that drafting a bus at speed, factoring in reaction times (especially given likely position relative to lights etc), relative weights, and grip, associated frictional force, the bus would win every time.
Personally, I would never want to find out.
I wouldn't want to find out either, which is why as a more mature and sensible person I don't do it now. But with buses, you know they are going to stop often - every few hundred metres - and they don't go that fast. There weren't many bus drivers with better reactions than me, especially as I was ready to brake hard if necessary, and as I have said before, they cannot brake harder than a bike on a dry road. It just did not happen. Maybe in the wet, but I'm like Bradley in the wet, very slow very careful.0 -
Navrig wrote:DaveP1 wrote:So you think crappy 19th century derived rim brakes can compete with servoed hydraulic disc brakes? oh dear.
If you don't, you've never tried it. When in traffic, I always have both hands on the levers ready to react to whatever the idiots in their tin boxes may do next. I have never been outbraked by any car/van/lorry/bus. It just does not happen. The only exception is if my attention has been elsewhere and I haven't seen the brake lights come on.
"19th century derived rim brakes" work on a lighter system, have maybe a metre of direct-acting cable between the lever and the brake surface, and that's it. Modern vehicle brakes are working on something at least 10x the weight over 5x the distance through God knows what other systems.
You are probably right you have not been outbraked by a bus/car/tractor or whatever but that is probably because they have never really slammed the anchors on and carried out an emergency stop. It is relatively easy for a bike to do a near emergency stop without causing the rider or others problems. If you did it in a vehicle without justification you would cause chaos.
I for one would not want to be tailgating a motorised vehicle on my bike when that vehicle performs an emergency stop. You will not stop before hitting the vehicle.
I'm talking about larger commercial vehicles big enough to suck you along, and I disagree with you, because it never happened. They just don't have the brakes and tyres to do it; maybe your premium German saloon or sports car could. It's all in my past now, I have enough grey hairs without giving myself any more.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:NewTTer wrote:
That assumes that this part of the story was actually as told, or was in reality probably subject to a little embellishment as is the want of the type who would have posted this in the first placeChrisAOnABike wrote:
Someone in the corner of your eye pretends to whack you and you instinctively raise your arm in self-defence and whack them in the process would come into this category.diy wrote:There has been a lot of research on the causes of road rage/red mist etc. and its usually due to causing a primitive brain reaction.
The turning round and driving back at the OP intending either to hit him or only just miss him is nothing of the sort and justifies all kinds of revenge attacks.
Any suggestion otherwise is complete bollox. People get too damn angry these days, and use it as justification for all sorts of neanderthal behaviour.
Oh please, I have better things to do than invent stories for Bikeradar;
Firstly, he braked very hard, to try to get me to crash into him, which, partly, I did. I saw a puff of smoke from his back tyre.
Secondly, he did a U-turn from 200m away, and came directly for me as fast as he could. I cannot say for sure if would have hit me or not, but I decided a step to the right was a wise course of action; I could easily have touched him when he went past.
I've been truly surprised by some of the reactions here; what's my motive? Motive = share what I thought was an interesting story on a forum - I shall refrain from doing so in the future.
Why was I provoking him and being so aggressive and dangerous? I consider what I did to have been pretty harmless, in good spirits and certainly not worthy of the violent reaction that I got. I don't really get the people focusing on the drafting when some young psychopath is looking like he wants to kill you. But hey, it's a public forum, think what you like.
I suggest you sell the bikes and stick to being Dr. Frank N. Furter in futureSelling my Legend frame
http://owningalegend.wordpress.com/2014 ... ced-price/0 -
And we would still be pointing out to you why that is a wrong and stupid thing to have done.bernithebiker wrote:So ignore all other aspects of the story and focus just on me. Odd. Maybe my story should just have been; 'I drafted a scooter today'.
If you go around provoking strangers they will sometimes react excessively. Why does this surprise you? Any ideas how it could be avoided? Clue: bear in mind you are in a vulnerable situation and try showing other road users a bit of respect.
Aside from why what you did was a bad idea, you seem to expect behaviour in response to be BETTER than the behaviour you displayed yourself.0 -
LegendLust wrote:
I suggest you sell the bikes and stick to being Dr. Frank N. Furter in future
Totally over my head this one.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:
And we would still be pointing out to you why that is a wrong and stupid thing to have done.bernithebiker wrote:So ignore all other aspects of the story and focus just on me. Odd. Maybe my story should just have been; 'I drafted a scooter today'.
Exactly. We should have just had a discussion about silly, show off Berni drafting which is far more interesting than a psychopathic yob.Tom Dean wrote:you go around provoking strangers they will sometimes react excessively. Why does this surprise you? Any ideas how it could be avoided? Clue: bear in mind you are in a vulnerable situation and try showing other road users a bit of respect.
Once again, you are focusing on the cause, not the effect. This guy was weird. I would suggest that 99% of other road users would not have reacted like this. That's why it's unusual, that's why I decided to put it on the forum.Tom Dean wrote:from why what you did was a bad idea, you seem to expect behaviour in response to be BETTER than the behaviour you displayed yourself.
Bizarre. You just aren't getting it. I didn't want him to send me flowers. I just didn't want him to kill me.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Once again, you are focusing on the cause, not the effect. This guy was weird. I would suggest that 99% of other road users would not have reacted like this. That's why it's unusual, that's why I decided to put it on the forum.bernithebiker wrote:So it could be argued I shouldn't have drafted him, but it was just a bit of fun, on an open road, v.little traffic, and his reaction was somewhat OTT - oh well!
This is the point. What was a little fun to you wasn't to him. Probably 99% of road users wouldn't have reacted that way but 1% is still a lot of motorists in terms of the vehicles that you interact with on a daily basis. You chose to undertake an action that had a fairly likely chance (1%) of pissing someone off and you come across affronted when that happened.
People are just reacting to the fact that what you think of as a bit of fun wasn't a bit of fun to the random stranger you decided to have fun with. Would you go up to random strangers and blast them with a water pistol with a friendly "Don't worry, it's only water" and expect them all to like it?Faster than a tent.......0 -
DaveP1 wrote:Sorry Matt, I thought you were saying that if you were being tailgated, you were taught to slow down; seemed wrong to me!
I think he is saying that - the way its positioned is the guy behind has not left enough space to stop, so you need to increase your stopping space to compensate. e.g. if you follow the 2 second rule (which mostly works) and they are tailgating then you increase your space to 3 or 4 seconds so that you wont get shunted if you need to stop quickly as you can give them more time to react. You don't slam on, but gently roll off the power to create the extra gap, giving you more time to brake if you need to.
Regarding your comment on out braking, is that you need to exceed their stopping distance by both their thinking distance and their braking distance, unless you actually have your eyes on the road in front of the car you are tailgating and can anticipate their reactions before them. You learn to ride inside the stopping distance on surveillance courses where sometimes you want to "hide" behind the vehicle you are following. Obviously that will typically be on a super blackbird not a bicycle
So if the min stopping distance for both vehicles is 1g (based on the CoF of rubber on concrete) then you get about 10m stopping distance from 30mph, but you will typically travel between 10 and 20 meters further before you react to their reaction. Hence to out brake them at 30mph you need to react 2-3 times faster.0 -
Rolf F wrote:Would you go up to random strangers and blast them with a water pistol with a friendly "Don't worry, it's only water" and expect them all to like it?
Let's say I did. I would expect a good portion of society to laugh it off. A smaller section would get a bit annoyed and have a moan. An even smaller section would get quite angry and shout about a bit. And a very small minority would come at you fists flying, baying for your blood.
In a civilised society I would hope that most people would condemn the actions of the latter group, because whatever the provocation, violent neanderthal like reactions are undesirable surely?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:In a civilised society I would hope that most people would condemn the actions of the latter group, because whatever the provocation, violent neanderthal like reactions are undesirable surely?
Indeed - and I suspect really everyone here would condemn that behaviour - just with the qualification that you brought it on yourself. As most of us do at some point over something.
Put it this way - whilst you've got slightly mauled on this thread, just think how the thread would have turned out if it had been posted from the scooter riders perspective!Faster than a tent.......0 -
bernithebiker wrote:LegendLust wrote:
I suggest you sell the bikes and stick to being Dr. Frank N. Furter in future
Totally over my head this one.
Would a pelvic thrust help then?0
