Altercation with a Scooter rider
Comments
-
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.0 -
not really any more danger than you accept by simply climbing on the bike in the first place, although i guess the OP didn't factor in nutty scooter drivers in the risk assessment form he should have sent into HSE before setting out.Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.0 -
I was meaning that the OP's tailgating put the scooter rider in more danger - not a lot, but still the risk was there.nathancom wrote:
not really any more danger than you accept by simply climbing on the bike in the first place, although i guess the OP didn't factor in nutty scooter drivers in the risk assessment form he should have sent into HSE before setting out.Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
Just for the record, he didn't have any mirrors at all. Nor indicators. Nor brake light as far as I could see.
Wouldn't have passed any kind of 'undodgy' MOT.
His brakes worked pretty well though.......0 -
by not a lot what do you mean? there have been lots of claims in this thread that the OP got what was coming for his reckless endangerment of other road users but without anything to back up these claims. Does anyone have any statistical basis for claiming the OP put the scooter rider at significantly greater risk or is everyone just assuming this is the case in order to give the OP a bit of grief. Clearly it is the latter.Slowbike wrote:
I was meaning that the OP's tailgating put the scooter rider in more danger - not a lot, but still the risk was there.nathancom wrote:
not really any more danger than you accept by simply climbing on the bike in the first place, although i guess the OP didn't factor in nutty scooter drivers in the risk assessment form he should have sent into HSE before setting out.Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
There is a distinct attitude that because the OP was having fun he was doing wrong.0 -
by not a lot I mean that if the scooter rider changed direction or slowed suddenly then there is the possibility of the OP colliding with him and causing an accident.0
-
"nathancom wrote:. Does anyone have any statistical basis for claiming the OP put the scooter rider at significantly greater risk
Why does it have to be significantly greater risk?
If by drafting he increased the risk to the scooter rider my a tiny amount then the OP was in the wrong, no matter how you analyse it.
The OP has acknowledged it.0 -
But
But
BUT
BUT
If my auntie had bollox she would be my uncle
0 -
nathancom wrote:
by not a lot what do you mean? there have been lots of claims in this thread that the OP got what was coming for his reckless endangerment of other road users but without anything to back up these claims. Does anyone have any statistical basis for claiming the OP put the scooter rider at significantly greater risk or is everyone just assuming this is the case in order to give the OP a bit of grief. Clearly it is the latter.Slowbike wrote:
I was meaning that the OP's tailgating put the scooter rider in more danger - not a lot, but still the risk was there.nathancom wrote:
not really any more danger than you accept by simply climbing on the bike in the first place, although i guess the OP didn't factor in nutty scooter drivers in the risk assessment form he should have sent into HSE before setting out.Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
There is a distinct attitude that because the OP was having fun he was doing wrong.
You have managed to misunderstand or misrepresent what is being said on every point. Staggering.nathancom wrote:
Then why are you all berating the OP for the fact some nutter tried to intimidate him with a scooter just because he was drafting. The OP did nothing out of the ordinary or dangerous or disrespectful yet he is being told he is to blame for the incident or at best 50% liable.Rolf F wrote:nathancom wrote:ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip.
You make it sound as though you are the only person who realises this - whereas everybody does know it. You need to re read the thread and see what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying!
I'm concerned your inability to understand simple concepts may pose a HEALTH AND SAFETY risk to those around you.0 -
Tom Dean wrote:You have managed to misunderstand or misrepresent what is being said on every point. Staggering.
I'm concerned your inability to understand simple concepts may pose a HEALTH AND SAFETY risk to those around you.
If in doubt, belittle those that do not have the same opinion as you, works every time.0 -
I don't really see that many people in this thread have much of a point to misunderstand other than wanting to take a swing at the OP for enjoying himself on a bike. If you want to tell me clearly what brilliantly complex notion I am misunderstanding then fire away. I doubt you will have anything substantive since mostly you have been making stuff up in the first place.0
-
You're losing your sense of humour bernie :roll:
There's nothing complex about it. Jumping on someone's wheel uninvited IS disrespectful and potentially dangerous. Even if you disagree with this, it is that scooterist's perception that matters, and you have no control over that. If you behave towards random people in this way, some will react excessively by definition.nathancom wrote:I don't really see that many people in this thread have much of a point to misunderstand other than wanting to take a swing at the OP for enjoying himself on a bike. If you want to tell me clearly what brilliantly complex notion I am misunderstanding then fire away. I doubt you will have anything substantive since mostly you have been making stuff up in the first place.
That is why, even if YOU think drafting strangers is no big deal*, reactions such as this are best avoided by not doing it.
*edit: in other words, if your interest in that person's feelings only starts at the point they are ready to batter you.
Would you like to show what you think I have made up?0 -
How is it disrespectful? how is it potentially dangerous? You are assuming both of these things for the sake of blaming the OP for the incident. Why should the scooterist's opinion count when his opinion of correct behaviour is clearly shown to deviate significantly from what most people consider normal. I could perceive any number of things as disrespectful, that wouldn't make them inherently disrespectful.Tom Dean wrote:You're losing your sense of humour bernie :roll:
There's nothing complex about it. Jumping on someone's wheel uninvited IS disrespectful and potentially dangerous. Even if you disagree with this, it is that scooterist's perception that matters, and you have no control over that. If you behave towards random people in this way, some will react excessively by definition.nathancom wrote:I don't really see that many people in this thread have much of a point to misunderstand other than wanting to take a swing at the OP for enjoying himself on a bike. If you want to tell me clearly what brilliantly complex notion I am misunderstanding then fire away. I doubt you will have anything substantive since mostly you have been making stuff up in the first place.
That is why, even if YOU think drafting strangers is no big deal, reactions such as this are best avoided by not doing it.
Would you like to show what you think I have made up?
A fellow cyclist had a reasonably unpleasant experience on the road and most of you have told him it is his fault with no justification. he wasn't hurting anyone, he wasn't making anyone else's life unpleasant.0 -
This still running ? Cor, speedking and steelem will be added to by bernie if it goes on much longer, food for thought ?I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat French toast...0
-
Following inches behind someone for no apparent reason not disrespectful? You are entitled to your opinion I suppose but I think you misunderstand how respect works. The whole point is that you are supposed to take the other person's perception into account. That is normal social behaviour, it's not a question of what is 'inherently disrespectful'.
Whether you agree or not there has been plenty of justification behind comments that bernie contributed to the situation. To say he wasn't hurting anyone is stupid - he very clearly imposed upon this person in a way he found unpleasant.
*this does not mean I think he deserved what happened.0 -
^ This. The OP was endangering the scooter rider by riding at 40kmh inches from the scooter rider. The scooter rider over-reacted and behaved badly, but the OP precipitated the altercation in the first place. As others have pointed out, few of us react well to being put in danger. A car that passes me with six inches to spare isn't actually doing any harm, and may be having fun, but that doesn't mean that I am going to be happy about it.0
-
Then why are you all berating the OP for the fact some nutter tried to intimidate him with a scooter just because he was drafting. The OP did nothing out of the ordinary or dangerous or disrespectful yet he is being told he is to blame for the incident or at best 50% liable.[/quote]nathancom wrote:quote="Rolf F"]nathancom wrote:ffs if the scooter driver is someone who gets upset because a push bike has latched onto him and is a couple of feet behind then he needs to get a grip.
You make it sound as though you are the only person who realises this - whereas everybody does know it. You need to re read the thread and see what people are actually saying rather than what you think they are saying!
I'm not berating him for that fact - simply pointing out that if you act in a way that is likely to upset someone who is prone to overacting then you can't argue that you didn't bring it on yourself. Bernietb has culpability in this just as the scooter rider does. TBH, it sounds like a nasty experience and he has my sympathies for that but it was a foolish game to play with an unknowing stranger. You meet someone aggressive and start invading their personal space and what do you think is going to happen?nathancom wrote:by not a lot what do you mean? there have been lots of claims in this thread that the OP got what was coming for his reckless endangerment of other road users but without anything to back up these claims. Does anyone have any statistical basis for claiming the OP put the scooter rider at significantly greater risk or is everyone just assuming this is the case in order to give the OP a bit of grief.
It's irrelevant whether or not there is any statistical basis that the OP put the scooter rider at risk. What is relevant is how the scooter rider perceived it. Even if it was safe (and, come on, drafting a scooter isn't safe for the scooter rider in the same way it would be for a lorry driver being drafted), if the scooter rider doesn't think it was then that is what generates the altercation. How is the scooter rider meant to undertake a statistical analysis on the risk implications of what the cyclist is doing?Faster than a tent.......0 -
Anyway, I think not being allowed to go outside on his bike till the weekend, being sent to bed with no supper and having to write a letter of apology to the scooter rider is sufficient punishment...0
-
Nope, he's on the naughty step for life. I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast, but I'm intercontinental when I eat French toast...0
-
bernithebiker wrote:
Just for the record, he didn't have any mirrors at all. Nor indicators. Nor brake light as far as I could see.
Wouldn't have passed any kind of 'undodgy' MOT.
There is no legal requirement for mirrors or indicators on a Moped. There is no minimum tyre tread depth either.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
Nor indicators. Nor brake light as far as I could see.
Just noticed this bit.
And you were prepared to draft him, jings, crivvens and help ma'boab!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:0 -
Navrig wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
Nor indicators. Nor brake light as far as I could see.
Just noticed this bit.
And you were prepared to draft him, jings, crivvens and help ma'boab!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
You'd better make a nice cup of tea to calm down.
Watch out though! Boiling water can be VERY dangerous.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:Navrig wrote:bernithebiker wrote:Slowbike wrote:
What a load of tosh - the OPs actions had an element of danger about them, also the scooter rider should've been checking his mirrors more often and not got the "shock" ...nathancom wrote:What a load of tosh - OPs actions weren't dangerous at all, he was just unlucky to come across a maniac.
Nor indicators. Nor brake light as far as I could see.
Just noticed this bit.
And you were prepared to draft him, jings, crivvens and help ma'boab!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
You'd better make a nice cup of tea to calm down.
Watch out though! Boiling water can be VERY dangerous.
Only in the hands of numpties though.0 -
I cant help but thinking this could have stopped this whole sorry affair:
http://www.wickes.co.uk/thick-foam-drau ... vt/161202/www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
