Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To want to smash illegally parked cars after I just almost got knocked off bike?

(145 Posts)
NeoMaxiZoomDweebie Thu 18-Jul-13 16:36:27

I am so MAD it's not even describable. I live in an area of loads of victorian terraces...it's very naice and everything but these people park their bastard cars all up the roads and half on the paths making it treacherous for cyclists and pedestrians.

I just turned left into the next street on my bike (on the road) having checked there was no oncoming traffic. As I began cycling off, a car was coming in the opposite direction at quite a speed....probably not above the legal limit though...he did however get so close to me that he knocked the brake almost off the bike and caused me to clatter and clunk along the side of his car...this was due to A his speed and B the fact that the whole side of the road is taken up by fucking CARS where it should be FREE for ME to ride!

angry

I was very apologetic and the driver was white....he kept saying "are you alright?" and I realise now that it was probably more his fault than mine...I was worried about his car!

I never got hurt...but that's because I had the strength to lever me and the bike away from the car and keep my feet clear...causing me to be sort of sandwiched between the moving car and the parked one.

What can i DO??? I have complained about the cars parking there before and they told me they'd ticket them all...then nothing happens!

aquashiv Sat 20-Jul-13 09:50:57
kungfupannda Sat 20-Jul-13 09:41:15

Both the OP and the car-driver were at fault to some extent.

The OP has clarified that the car was already in the road, and that she knew/thought she had time to get clear. She didn't. Even if the other car speeded up, he was already travelling past the obstruction and therefore had right of way and the OP should have waited. This was a fairly simple error of judgement, but still technically places her at fault to some extent.

But the fact that it was his right of way doesn't absolve the car driver of the need to take car - he can't just drive into someone because he doesn't think they should be there, any more than he can just run a pedestrian over because they've walked out in front of him. Although it sounds like he made an error of judgement too, rather than simply ploughing on deliberately.

So both the OP and the car driver made a mistake that contributed to the incident but the car-driver's mistake was probably the more serious one.

In relation to the parked cars, legally, none of those drivers would be held at fault in relation to the incident. They were parked and therefore a pre-existing hazard that both the OP and the driver should have reacted to.

I would also be extremely surprised if an entire street of cars is parked illegally on a daily basis - as someone else said upthread, illegal parking is a massive money spinner for local authorities and a report of a whole street of cars would generally have the nearest traffic warden dispatched at speed for a spot of gleeful ticketing.

Some places are just busy in terms of parking. It's just one of the hazards of living and travelling in busy, built-up areas.

If the cars are parked illegally then obviously they should be reported, but it's still ultimately down to the moving road users to take appropriate care, just as if the cars were a legal hazard.

EvieanneVolvic Sat 20-Jul-13 09:16:03

Is that it, Evienne? Bit of a whimping out?

Fascinating. I always thought that wimp/wimping was spelt without the h and a tiny bit of unscientific research has shown me to be right. Yet since there are obvious semantic connections with whimper it would make more sense for the h to be there.

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 22:55:28

Is that it, Evienne? Bit of a whimping out?

OP, update us some time. And thanks antimatter for the guide and directions.

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 21:56:06

<Sigh> You've done it again Pan.

There's a massive difference between speculating and extrapolating, Shirley. Shall I explain it for you?

ie offloading your own mistakes onto someone else. Gotta luv ya.

Over and out thanks

antimatter Fri 19-Jul-13 20:22:16

re-reading your comments OP I believe that the driver of the car was at fault, shame you didn't take his reg plates

antimatter Fri 19-Jul-13 20:18:08
antimatter Fri 19-Jul-13 20:17:55

didn't read all of replies but it is important to remember that both users of the road have this resonsibility:
https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126

^You should always reduce your speed when

the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists^

so he should have driven slower using road with badly parked cars.

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 20:11:18

There's a massive difference between speculating and extrapolating, Shirley. Shall I explain it for you?smile

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 19:26:09

<sings> On the good ship lollipop, it's a nice trip into bed we pop...

Just trying to lighten the mood people...it's Friday after all!

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 19:24:48

But you're the one extrapolating now Pan (stoppit you'll go blind f'nar). The OP has stated more than once that the driver was shaken, apologetic, concerned. Nowhere has she mentioned the callousness that you appear to be seeing in him.

Driver chose to increase the hazard, safe in the knowledge his life and limb wasn't at risk.

If that isn't imposing a preconceived notion of what "all" drivers I like then I'm Shirley Temple.

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 19:16:42

okay, Soup, hazards change in nature and immediacy depending on circs. Driver chose to increase the hazard, safe in the knowledge his life and limb wasn't at risk.

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 19:13:38

oh no, don't be so extreme Soup. Cyclists can sometimes be at fault. I've seen lots of madness on two wheels,and cringe at it. It feeds the anti-cyclist mob, because they usually like to extrapolate in a dumb way, unfortunatley.

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 19:11:51

Its not time lord capabilities, it's called hazard perception

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 19:11:51

Thanks Pan but the point still remains that the sequence of events (on the OP's telling) is different from yours on the basis of which you decided that all the other posters had had a reading/comprehension fail!

But yes second -guessing cyclists other road users is apain and no mistake! grin

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 19:10:06

So, still ignoring the fact that there was misjudgement on both sides.
Cyclists are not some perfect beings imbued with the ability to always be in the right and not make a mistake. The only ones not at fault here are the parked cars.

But it is obvious that you will never admit a cyclist could have been wrong. It's as much "quelle surprise" as you earlier claimed about Theodora.

I'll leave you to it.

.

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 19:09:07

And Pan very few people are asserting that the driver was entirely innocent or even denying that he was mostly at fault. The one person who doesn't seem to be blaming him is the OP!

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 19:08:16

no I didn't miss it, thanks. But unless she has Time Lord capability she can't leap forward to the next time-frame and work stuff out for the driver. Lordy knows we have to try to do that often enough.

EvieanneVolvic Fri 19-Jul-13 19:06:54

Yeah I made exactly that point Soup but Pan ignored it (or misjudged the speed grin), possibly because it didn't tally with her assertion that everyone was misreading the thread and that The car appeared in view after she was on the now-infamous road

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 19:05:07

Hmm, so what were the choices? Stop and hope for the best? And car speed changes (as she speculated) so speed and distances are variable, and she can't be expected to anticipate the drivers intentions to speed up or slow down in this situation.
The other curious thing is the fact that it all took place on the driver's side. So not having to imagine a further six feet or so of space. IT was all there right beside him. And he still decided to drive on. One can only hope there is an expensive body shop bill to meet.

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 19:02:54

In case you missed it There was a car coming down the long road but it seemed to be along way away

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 18:58:33

Oh, so when she saw there was a moving car further up the road she did not misjudge its speed or distance? Not sure how it ended up right next to her at the wrong place then.

Panonabike Fri 19-Jul-13 18:49:38

No, there was no 'misjudgement' from the OP's account.
In any case, in driving my car in this situation (as most drivers probably would) I'd slow down and (heaven forefend) actually stop to ensure we all got out of the situation nicely and recognise that bikes and cars are different. In this case, the driver appears to have decided he has more entitlement and bike has to get out of his way. Probably.

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 18:43:38

As a bikist one doesn't 'take on' cars coming at you

Well, I never said that one does. However, being a bikist doesn't make one immune from making a misjudgement.

SoupDragon Fri 19-Jul-13 18:41:57

The power is irrelevant.
The OP misjudged the speed and distance involved.
The car misjudged as well.
Neither are free from blame.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now