# Invisible me!



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Recently scientists have been working on making invisibility cloaks. I think they have been testing them out on unsuspecting cyclists. I think I had one on this morning.....or this lady just didn't look in her mirror....hmmmm.

One of my colleagues (who works in a different part of the hospital) sent me an e-mail to say she wittnessed this incident. This is what she wrote:

_HeHe - I was thinking she's so gonna be on youtube Complete nutter! How could she have not seen you unless she just totally didn't look out her rear mirror?!! And she only realised when you started banging the car! Nuts... 
I was crossing the road at the wee island you were turning at, was gonna shout over but you scooted off too quickly. 
Least no harm came to you._

Says it all really!


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

What happened to the 'O' in manoeuvre? Honestly Maggers you do make a fuss.


----------



## John Ponting (29 Jan 2009)

at least you got a friendly wave !


----------



## fossyant (29 Jan 2009)

Slow speed - at least you didn't get run over at 30 mph..... unlike me..........think someone has recently been putting these cloaks on cyclists whilst they were asleep, or invented some form of invisible yarn for cycling kit......

TBH, she shouldn't have reversed !


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> What happened to the 'O' in manoeuvre? Honestly Maggers you do make a fuss.



Is manoeuvre/maneuver not one of these words that can be spelled either way? Anyway my spelling has always been very poor.

Umm, the car reversed into me and I had to bang the window to get her to stop. After she apologised I waved her on. I don't think I made a big fuss, do you?


----------



## Eat MY Dust (29 Jan 2009)

I'm slightly confused to what the 2 cars were actually trying to do. BTW a driver not using their mirrors, there's a new one!


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> I'm slightly confused to what the 2 cars were actually trying to do. BTW a driver not using their mirrors, there's a new one!




There was the silver car reverse parking (it had enough space). The VW car was creeping forward I think. I think the parking driver, thought she was getting to close, so hit the horn. Then the other driver decided to reverse into me. I think the VW driver was in a bit of a dream world!


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Is manoeuvre/maneuver not one of these words that can be spelled either way? Anyway my spelling has always been very poor.
> 
> Umm, the car reversed into me and I had to bang the window to get her to stop. After she apologised I waved her on. *I don't think I made a big fuss, do you?*



Well yes and I'm not meaning this in a picky or critical way but she made a mistake and acknowledged it, yes it was an incident but not a personal attack, I mean stuff happens does it not. 

Like you I'd have shouted and banged the window but then as I looked in I would have smiled and waved, in a kind of acknowledgment that I'm part of the human race too and I also make mistakes. You always seem to take it so very personally and seriously, it can't be good for your blood pressure Maggers. I just think you need to relax a bit more, still I doubt you'll take any notice of me, we are what we are: Chill Maggers


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Well yes and I'm not meaning this in a picky or critical way but she made a mistake and acknowledged it, yes it was an incident but not a personal attack, I mean stuff happens does it not.
> 
> Like you I'd have shouted and banged the window but then as I looked in I would have smiled and waved, in a kind of acknowledgment that I'm part of the human race too and I also make mistakes. You always seem to take it so very personally and seriously, it can't be good for your blood pressure Maggers. I just think you need to relax a bit more, still I doubt you'll take any notice of me, we are what we are: Chill Maggers



Crackle, I thought you got me. I go around to the side of the car and ask her (in a annoyed fashion I'll agree) what was she reversing for. I see she apologises and I wave her, on. What did you want me to do, ask her out for a coffee?! My annoyance at the situation lasted all of about 10 seconds after the incident. After that I thought it was mildly amusing. I posted it along with my amusing reply from my colleague, as I thought it would be interesting/amusing etc. Also producing these videos is 'what I do'!

No idea why you think I am wound up by this!


----------



## Eat MY Dust (29 Jan 2009)

lol, shows how observant I am. I though that was a line of traffic. Maybe I'm just used to cycling around NW London!


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Jan 2009)

Perhaps she was on the crack pipe last night.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Jan 2009)

Eat MY Dust said:


> lol, shows how observant I am. *I though that was a line of traffic*. Maybe I'm just used to cycling around NW London!


Me too! What was she trying to do though? I thought she was turning by the way she started to move to the right, but then when she reversed!!! Bizarre.

Slightly OT... but what was the car on the RH side of the road you were riding up initially actually doing??? If it was parked then the driver needs to retake their test!! 

I actually thought she'd hit your bike too from the sound of it.

Glad no damage done, Mags.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Like you sharky, I thought the car was turning and hadn't initially realised that she was pulling some daft manoeuver (for crackle ) around the car that was parking. That's why I ended up behind her. She was still moving until I appeared behind her.

Maybe my spidey sense should have kicked in again, but I think she was pretty hard to predict!


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Well yes and I'm not meaning this in a picky or critical way but she made a mistake and acknowledged it, yes it was an incident but not a personal attack, I mean stuff happens does it not.
> 
> Like you I'd have shouted and banged the window but then as I looked in I would have smiled and waved, in a kind of acknowledgment that I'm part of the human race too and I also make mistakes. You always seem to take it so very personally and seriously, it can't be good for your blood pressure Maggers. I just think you need to relax a bit more, still I doubt you'll take any notice of me, we are what we are: Chill Maggers



What a strange post - I would not have smiled and waved if somebody had come close to hurting me! 

I would have banged the car and then I would have done exactly what Mags did and shouted through the window - I think with me there may have been a couple of f words though. Like Mags once a wave of apology is given I would have backed down instantly.

I know in this instance nobody was hurt etc but what if Mags had been checking over his shoulder to see if it was okay to overtake or taken his eyes off the road for a second - she would have knocked him off and then kept on reversing over him while he had no way of letting her know he was there.

What if there had been a car behind her? She would have driven into the back of them. 

What if it had been a pedestrian crossing behind her? 

Lots of what ifs I know but all of those what ifs can be avoided if she just does what she was taught in her bloody driving test and checks behind her whilst reversing! 

Love your vids by the way Mags - I still keep laughing about the one where you tell the guy that pavements are for 5 year olds and he turns around and calls you allsorts - it really really cracks me up! Sorry if he insulted you!


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> Love your vids by the way Mags - I still keep laughing about the one where you tell the guy that pavements are for 5 year olds and he turns around and calls you allsorts - it really really cracks me up! Sorry if he insulted you!




Just look at some of the comments I receive on my youtube videos. It takes an awful lot of abuse to wind me up!


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> Crackle, I thought you got me. I go around to the side of the car and ask her (in a annoyed fashion I'll agree) what was she reversing for. I see she apologises and I wave her, on. What did you want me to do, ask her out for a coffee?! My annoyance at the situation lasted all of about 10 seconds after the incident. After that I thought it was mildly amusing. I posted it along with my amusing reply from my colleague, as I thought it would be interesting/amusing etc. Also producing these videos is 'what I do'!
> 
> No idea why you think I am wound up by this!



I do get you and no I didn't say you were wound up but the annoyance is uneccesary and accomplishes what? 

On quite a few of your videos in your interaction with other people you sound annoyed which is understandable but not useful. Why, because logic and reason tend to dissolve at that point. In this case instead of telling her she can't reverse if you're there, which I'm sure she realized, a simple calm call for her to check her mirror might have sunk in more, don't you think? And that's without considering the effect on your own mind and approach to cycling. 

With reference to state of mind and cameras, I'm now quite convinced that I wouldn't ever buy a camera. My view is the fitting of one tends to fixate you into a negative view of cycling and then allow you to dwell on it over and over again. I can't argue that they are occasionally useful but on balance I think their use has more negatives than positives. I know you and others may disagree but I'm clear in my own mind what I want out of my cycling experience.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> I do get you and no I didn't say you were wound up but the annoyance is uneccesary and accomplishes what?
> 
> On quite a few of your videos in your interaction with other people you sound annoyed which is understandable but not useful. Why, because logic and reason tend to dissolve at that point. In this case instead of telling her she can't reverse if you're there, which I'm sure she realized, a simple calm call for her to check her mirror might have sunk in more, don't you think? And that's without considering the effect on your own mind and approach to cycling.
> 
> With reference to state of mind and cameras, I'm now quite convinced that I wouldn't ever buy a camera. My view is the fitting of one tends to fixate you into a negative view of cycling and then allow you to dwell on it over and over again. I can't argue that they are occasionally useful but on balance I think their use has more negatives than positives. I know you and others may disagree but I'm clear in my own mind what I want out of my cycling experience.



Oh come on crackle. There was no need for me to point out anything about using her mirror. I'm sure she could have worked it out for herself! My reaction here was perfectly understandable considering how close she came to actually knocking me off my bike. Had she gone another 10cm she would have hit my bike, possibly another 20cm and I would have been off.

What a reaction like mine (which by many standards was very subdued) would achieve is to indicate to her the gravitas of the situation from my point of view. From my initial reaction she would at least realise how silly what she did was. I reckon, she will pay more attention in future....result.

As for cameras, yes they can focus on the negative, and I know mine does. However, not everyone needs to use their camera in the way I do. I started something, and I want to keep it going. Just think about all of the debate we have had. All of the issues that my and others filming has raised, not just here, but in the minds of the general public. Any debate on road safety is a good debate, as it makes people think, and hopefully on occasion change their ways. 

I wouldn't be without my camera now on commutes. That does not stop me enjoying them, as I certainly do. On the odd occasion where something does happen, it makes me happier to know that I have a record of it and if necessary I could take it to the police etc.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> I wouldn't be without my camera now on commutes. That does not stop me enjoying them, as I certainly do. On the odd occasion where something does happen, it makes me happier to know that I have a record of it and *if necessary I could take it to the police etc.*


And they could enjoy watching it over a nice cuppa... and then carry on to do something else which involved someone far more important than a cyclist.


----------



## JamesAC (29 Jan 2009)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> snip ...Love your vids by the way Mags ... /snip


+1


----------



## tyred (29 Jan 2009)

She wasn't expecting to find anyone so close behind her at that point.

I almost reversed over a man while driving a van once. I was parked in a car park, started the engine, was about to reverse out, stopped for a split second to retune the radio, had a quick glance in both door mirrors and started reversing. I had moved about a foot when someone knocked on the back door. It was quite a breezy day and as it turns out, a man had crouched down behind my van looking for a bit of shelter to light a fag when I started reversing. I never expected anyone to be there.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Jan 2009)

A copper on yacf had his bike and foot (I think) run over by a reversing van. It's one to be careful of, and ever since reading his story I've been wary of being close behind a vehicle.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Jan 2009)

p.s. am just as guilty as EMD on thinking that was a line of queueing traffic, LOL!


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> A copper on yacf had his bike and foot (I think) run over by a reversing van. It's one to be careful of, and ever since reading his story I've been wary of being close behind a vehicle.




When I started crossing the junction I thought she was turning. So I had no reason to think she would still be there by the time I crossed. I noticed she was slowing, but by that time I was crossing the junction so I had to keep going (some cars were coming). It meant I had to get closer than I normally would. Still about 1.5m away before she starts reversing!


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

OK Maggers I take your point.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> OK Maggers I take your point.




No worries Crackle! You OK, just seem a little grumpy today....


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> No worries Crackle! You OK, just seem a little grumpy today....




Well spotted: I am. Grumpy and gloomy.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle said:


> Well spotted: I am. Grumpy and gloomy.




I hope it's just one of those days and not for any particular reason. Have a virtual beer on me .


----------



## BentMikey (29 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> When I started crossing the junction I thought she was turning. So I had no reason to think she would still be there by the time I crossed. I noticed she was slowing, but by that time I was crossing the junction so I had to keep going (some cars were coming). It meant I had to get closer than I normally would. Still about 1.5m away before she starts reversing!



No need to be so defensive, you're like a cat on carpet for traction at the moment.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> No need to be so defensive, you're like a cat on carpet for traction at the moment.




 I'm not being defensive, honest! Just explaining what I did and why. I suppose I'm getting used to the abuse now (not here), and pro-actively react to what I think people might pick up. 

I really do know what it must be like to be on trial for murder, the scrutiny of every detail, the hate etc! 

I sometimes check out the places that link to my videos (insight on youtube) and recently I noticed I was getting a lot of new hits on the site. Turns out someone had posted one of my videos on pistonheads. Blimey, you'd think I'd been responsible for some heinous crimes. Ho hum, it gets people talking.....


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

> [Devil's advocate]
> 
> Should you not have clocked the parallel-parking car, the black one approaching it from behind, and the cars approaching you on the other side of the road, and waited?
> 
> [/Devil's advocate]



Yup. I probably should have, but from where I was coming it wasn't obvious. I honestly thought she was turning, but taking her time. See I am human!


----------



## Arch (29 Jan 2009)

Of course, not only did she not look in her mirrors, but she'd either failed to see you as she pulled past you, or forgotten you were there in the space of a couple of seconds...


----------



## BentMikey (29 Jan 2009)

Probably didn't register with the stress of turning and the car next to her. I'm sure I'd also have gone like Magnatom did.


----------



## Bollo (29 Jan 2009)

Getting too close to dancing automobiles is something I've become more wary of since picking my way through Bolletta's school run became a fixture a couple of years ago. Crazy manoeuvres like Magger's reverser are standard issue, usually into a pavement full of kids. I'm not sure I'd bat an eyelid if a parent appeared out of the ground in a tunnelling machine.



Crackle said:


> With reference to state of mind and cameras, I'm now quite convinced that I wouldn't ever buy a camera. My view is the fitting of one tends to fixate you into a negative view of cycling and then allow you to dwell on it over and over again. I can't argue that they are occasionally useful but on balance I think their use has more negatives than positives. I know you and others may disagree but I'm clear in my own mind what I want out of my cycling experience.



Magger's vids are a special case as he's become the poster boy for a certain branch of cycle advocacy. If we all started posting our day to day hassles, I think it would start to become self-defeating by potraying cycling as much more dangerous than it really is. It would be like basing the driving test solely on episodes of 'Road Wars'.

You're right - being cammed up can affect your state of mind if you let it. What I've tried to do is get clear in my head why I have a camera. For me its an insurance policy for when things go (and did go) wrong. I've also used it to address specific incidents where I can make a difference, a recent near offing by a courier being an example. In this case, the vid went up to show the MD and came down again when I was satisfied with his response. I did post a few close passes etc when I first got the camera, but the novelty has worn off now. These days, I'll only put up a vid as either a full "name and shame" or if its funny. But the point is that I know its not going to help one bit if I'm offed or assaulted in the search of 'a good story'. It's no good being right and dead.

Grumpy and gloomy - that makes you glumpy!


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2009)

Glumpy. I like that.

It was your vid I was thinking of Bollo. It's the only really concrete case I've seen of a vid making a difference. I know that sending examples of bad driving to companies is also arguably making a difference but it's not for me, not something I'd do. I'd also argue that there's a downside to it as well. It's one of those little things that turns up the heat just a little bit for everybody. Not in ways that are obvious or even easy to explain, though I'm sure someone like FM could elucidate on the effects of different forms of surveillance in our lives. I don't need to though, I'm happy to deal with it on a more instinctual level and I'm not comfortable with it. It's exactly the same principle in ditching my HR monitor and computer on occasions and just concentrating on the ride, it's the feeling of freedom you get. I also accept that people are better than me at divorcing themselves from such things but I know I would feel encumbered by it.


----------



## Night Train (29 Jan 2009)

As a driver I would have approached differently, as I cyclist I would probably have done the same as you.

I remember, years ago, a friend who was reversing a Leyland Martian recovery truck out of a road. Usual two hoots on the horn to say he was reversing and then proceeded. A driver in a Nissan Sunny drove up close behind the Martian, ignoring the watchers waving her to stop, and promptly got her bonnet runover.


----------



## magnatom (29 Jan 2009)

Crackle, I'm with you on the dumping gear idea. I know that when I go out on longer rides, I won't have a camera. I'll need to keep the weight down to get up the hills anyway!

I also think it makes another difference. I've had a good number of people personally contact me and thank me for my videos in one way or another. Some have said they learned from my videos, some have said it has helped them to know that they aren't the only ones who have these sorts of problems. 

Anyway, as Bollo says I'm a special case!


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

It was a busy junction and the last thing she would have expected is a cyclist crossing it to end up behind her at that point,she seemed to be giving way to a reversing car by doing the same,you didnt see it and made a mistake,putting yourself in that position then complaining she wasnt using her mirrors is unfair.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> No need to be so defensive, you're like a cat on carpet for traction at the moment.



Well he knows you are perfect BM.


----------



## goo_mason (30 Jan 2009)

col said:


> It was a busy junction and the last thing she would have expected is a cyclist crossing it to end up behind her at that point,she seemed to be giving way to a reversing car by doing the same,you didnt see it and made a mistake,putting yourself in that position then complaining she wasnt using her mirrors is unfair.



I don't agree there, Col - it's not busy - those are all just parked cars, and when Magnatom set off out of the side road the car that hit him was still going forward. She went very quickly from stopping to reversing, and obviously made the mistake of reversing without looking to see that there was space to do so.

IMHO, the only thing Magnatom did wrong was to fail to spot the silver car pull to a stop and its reversing lights go on, which may have warned him to be aware. But then maybe he did, but didn't expect the dark car to reverse as well since it looked like it was driving around the silver one with lots of room to spare (it's already over the middle line at 19secs).

Whether you think Magnatom should or shouldn't have been in that position, the driver still backed up without checking her mirror - very unwise to do so in the middle of a road, wouldn't you say ? There could have been a bus or a big truck bearing down on her at that point, and she'd have suffered a lot more than someone yelling "Oi !!" at her !


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jan 2009)

Hackers, if you carry on being a div, I'll just put you on ignore.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Jan 2009)

col said:


> It was a busy junction and the last thing she would have expected is a cyclist crossing it to end up behind her at that point,she seemed to be giving way to a reversing car by doing the same,you didnt see it and made a mistake,putting yourself in that position then complaining she wasnt using her mirrors is unfair.


Oh golly gosh.. what a surprise... Col blaming someone else for a driver's stupidity/lack of awareness 

She's reversing on a road... stands to reason she should check her mirrors first. Sheesh, have you passed your driving test??


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jan 2009)

I must admit this topic makes me want to put an airzound on the Fujin!! Drivers react much faster to this than to a shouted Oi.


----------



## beanzontoast (30 Jan 2009)

Good job she reversed slowly. If she had been a different kind of person, she might have chucked it into reverse and gunned it back 20 yards, which wouldn't have been nice.

By the way Mag - why is there a vulture perched on your handlebars? You can clearly see two of its toes dangling in front of the lens on the left of the screen.


----------



## Crackle (30 Jan 2009)

beanzontoast said:


> By the way Mag - why is there a vulture perched on your handlebars? You can clearly see two of its toes dangling in front of the lens on the left of the screen.




It's not a vulture, it's the end of Deaths scythe. Maggers works in mysterious ways


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Oh golly gosh.. what a surprise... Col blaming someone else for a driver's stupidity/lack of awareness
> 
> She's reversing on a road... stands to reason she should check her mirrors first. Sheesh, have you passed your driving test??




Probably why the car behind her hadnt filled the gap maybe,to let her back possibly seeing what is happening?but then a cyclist rushes across to that gap when there isnt anywhere for him to go,or is pulling into that part of a junction normal when its as busy as that?I couldnt see any safe areas there,could you?


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> I don't agree there, Col - it's not busy - those are all just parked cars, and when Magnatom set off out of the side road the car that hit him was still going forward. She went very quickly from stopping to reversing, and obviously made the mistake of reversing without looking to see that there was space to do so.
> 
> IMHO, the only thing Magnatom did wrong was to fail to spot the silver car pull to a stop and its reversing lights go on, which may have warned him to be aware. But then maybe he did, but didn't expect the dark car to reverse as well since it looked like it was driving around the silver one with lots of room to spare (it's already over the middle line at 19secs).
> 
> Whether you think Magnatom should or shouldn't have been in that position, the driver still backed up without checking her mirror - very unwise to do so in the middle of a road, wouldn't you say ? There could have been a bus or a big truck bearing down on her at that point, and she'd have suffered a lot more than someone yelling "Oi !!" at her !




As he approaches the junction the car that reverses into the parking space is already stopped with reversing lights on,the car that reversed into him was not indicating right but trying to pass the reversing parked car which was blocking the road,it doesnt take much to see whats happening,but he still insists on moving forward,looks like another opertunity to dramatise it to me,unless he doesnt watch the road properly and made a dangerous mistake by not seeing what was going on there?It did backfire on him a little too


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I must admit this topic makes me want to put an airzound on the Fujin!! Drivers react much faster to this than to a shouted Oi.



You haven't heard me shout "Oi" in a gruff Manc accent (although I'm a but posher than that)


----------



## Bollo (30 Jan 2009)

col said:


> As he approaches the junction the car that reverses into the parking space is already stopped with reversing lights on,the car that reversed into him was not indicating right but trying to pass the reversing parked car which was blocking the road,it doesnt take much to see whats happening,but he still insists on moving forward,looks like another opertunity to dramatise it to me,unless he doesnt watch the road properly and made a dangerous mistake by not seeing what was going on there?It did backfire on him a little too



Col - I can't ignore you any longer. You're the metaphorical itch that just needs to be scratched.

I've got my work head on, so no big flights of fancy. Here goes. 

You are are talking sh1te. 

Magnatom was stationary when the reverse lights came on (22 seconds). Any movement after that is Mag's head - nothing more.

Are you seriously suggesting Mags put himself there knowing that driver would reverse? Are you seriously suggesting that Mags deliberately cycled into the back of the reversing car? Why would the driver apologise if it was completely Mag's fault?

The driver failed to follow the highway code rules 202. The driver attempted an unecessary pass due to impatience, failed to read the road and then performed an unecessary reverse without observation, again due to impatience.

I'm going to suprise you col. If that would have happened to me, I wouldn't have put it up. Why? Because the driver acknowledged their mistake. Hopefully, in an ideal world where people learn from their mistakes, they will be a bit more careful next time.


----------



## Crackle (30 Jan 2009)

That's on the silver car not the black car he was behind.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Hackers, if you carry on being a div, I'll just put you on ignore.



Do what you want,but it was only a joke.
So it's ok for you to do it.
I.E The specsavers quip more then once but the other way and you can't take it. sad.I even put a "" to show it was a joke or do you know it's true?

Least I don't have to come out with insults.



BentMikey said:


> I must admit this topic makes me want to put an airzound on the Fujin!! Drivers react much faster to this than to a shouted Oi.



I have found that as well.


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jan 2009)

I think we all go over the top,*sigh*.


----------



## Arch (30 Jan 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I must admit this topic makes me want to put an airzound on the Fujin!! Drivers react much faster to this than to a shouted Oi.



I bet they'd react to a chainwheel embedded in their boot lid too!

(Aside: Someone at a roadshow once tried to tell us that a recumbent was more dangerous than a car, because if you hit a ped, you'd stab them.  Whereas if a car hit a ped, it was designed so that they just rolled off....)


----------



## magnatom (30 Jan 2009)

One question col. Have you ever, ever said ANYTHING positive about my cycling? Go and search back through your old posts. I suspect I know the answer. If as I suspect the answer is no, then I suspect one of two things, either

a) You just don't like me or you find complaining about me as amusing/self gratifying
b)I have in every video that you have ever commented on, been the one at fault.

Mmm.


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> Col - I can't ignore you any longer. You're the metaphorical itch that just needs to be scratched.
> 
> I've got my work head on, so no big flights of fancy. Here goes.
> 
> ...




You should make a mags club,you could be the chair.
Im seriously suggesting he made a dangerous mistake,your the one saying im suggesting things that i havnt said.Im going to surprise you too...........BOO


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> I bet they'd react to a chainwheel embedded in their boot lid too!
> 
> (Aside: Someone at a roadshow once tried to tell us that a recumbent was more dangerous than a car, because if you hit a ped, you'd stab them. Whereas if a car hit a ped, it was designed so that they just rolled off....)





Same thing with motorcycles years ago,remember when they had the numberplate on the front mudguard?

Ooops im not slagging off recumbents.


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

magnatom said:


> One question col. Have you ever, ever said ANYTHING positive about my cycling? Go and search back through your old posts. I suspect I know the answer. If as I suspect the answer is no, then I suspect one of two things, either
> 
> a) You just don't like me or you find complaining about me as amusing/self gratifying
> b)I have in every video that you have ever commented on, been the one at fault.
> ...



Like iv said to you before mag,im saying it how i see it,sometimes i saw questionable actions from you in the past,sometimes not,but im giving a point of view or an opinion?It just so happens this time too seems to me to be a mistake on your part.


----------



## goo_mason (30 Jan 2009)

_<Taps feet and impatiently waits for the inevitable arrival of Mr Hippo and his scathing personal attack on Maggers' cycling skills.>_


----------



## col (30 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> _<Taps feet and impatiently waits for the inevitable arrival of Mr Hippo and his scathing personal attack on Maggers' cycling skills.>_




Im not attacking or scathing him,im saying what i see,it gets attacking and scathing when i respond to things said about/to me


----------



## goo_mason (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Im not attacking or scathing him,im saying what i see,it gets attacking and scathing when i respond to things said about/to me



Is this you revealing yourself as Mr Hippo, Col ? 

It was him wading in to the discussion that I was waiting for...


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

goo_mason said:


> Is this you revealing yourself as Mr Hippo, Col ?
> 
> It was him wading in to the discussion that I was waiting for...



Oh i see sorry,me mr hippo? mmmm


----------



## BentMikey (31 Jan 2009)

So Col, let's hear what you think the split of blame between Magnatom and the driver is in this incident. Firstly, legal blame, and secondly moral.


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> You should make a mags club,you could be the chair.
> Im seriously suggesting he made a dangerous mistake,your the one saying im suggesting things that i havnt said.Im going to surprise you too...........BOO



What was Mag's serious mistake, with references to the highway code and cycling best practice please?

Did the driver make any errors, specifically with reference to rule 202 of the highway code?


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

In post 48 col you say that the car - I assume you mean the black car that reverses into Mags - already had his reverse lights on. On reviewing the footage, do you now agree that @22 secs into the video, mags was already behind the car and stationary when the reverse lights came on?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> What was Mag's serious mistake, with references to the highway code and cycling best practice please?
> 
> Did the driver make any errors, specifically with reference to rule 202 of the highway code?




Quote whatever rules that float your boat if it makes you happy.His mistake was he rushed across while he had a gap and put himself in that situation,the fact that he positioned himself directly behind the car that nearly hit him shows he realised what a mistake he had made,to pull out of a junction and stand in the middle of the turning area to turn right for where he has just come from shows very poor regard for others as well as himself,there was nowhere for him to safely wait this out,and that shows when he blames the car reversing to let the parking car swing its front end out,with his where was her mirrors checking.As for he thought she was turning right,well without her indicating i wouldnt guess or summise such a thing,because as he has shown you can get yourself in risky positions by doing that,and it obviously shows his esp,or what is it he calls it? spidey sense isnt working either.
Put simply,if he couldnt reach the other side of the road and carry on without causing obstruction,then he should have waited till he could,but i suppose when you rely on your spidey sense these things are naturally going to happen


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> In post 48 col you say that the car - I assume you mean the black car that reverses into Mags - already had his reverse lights on. On reviewing the footage, do you now agree that @22 secs into the video, mags was already behind the car and stationary when the reverse lights came on?




You assume wrong,i meant the car parking,though im sure you realised this.As its been pointed out to you earlier.


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

No answers to the questions col? No? Thought not.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Bollo said:


> No answers to the questions col? No? Thought not.




My answer is there,you rush in to say this as if your just trying to bait,i wonder why?Or are you two connected and talking to each other with this spidey sense?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

What no witty retort? i thought not given that iv given you a full minute to answer


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Put simply,if he couldnt reach the other side of the road and carry on without causing obstruction,then he should have waited till he could,but i suppose when you rely on your spidey sense these things are naturally going to happen



What's the point of a central reservation, if not to allow crossing in two stages?

And I wouldn't assume a car not indicating wasn't turning, I wouldn't rely on any driver to indicate...

This morning, a dog ran across my path, so I slowed and went to go behind it, whereupon the owner called it back, straight into my path. Would that be my fault too?


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> What's the point of a central reservation, if not to allow crossing in two stages?
> 
> And I wouldn't assume a car not indicating wasn't turning, I wouldn't rely on any driver to indicate...
> 
> This morning, a dog ran across my path, so I slowed and went to go behind it, whereupon the owner called it back, straight into my path. Would that be my fault too?




Ridiculous example for you arch,if he had been watching ahead at what was happening he wouldnt have found himself in that position.


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> Ridiculous example for you arch,if he had been watching ahead at what was happening he wouldnt have found himself in that position.



Would you, honestly, in that situation, have thought "that woman is about reverse"? Really? Honestly?

I think you're being wise after the event, myself.


----------



## col (31 Jan 2009)

Arch said:


> Would you, honestly, in that situation, have thought "that woman is about reverse"? Really? Honestly?
> 
> I think you're being wise after the event, myself.



Im not on about the reversing lady who nearly hits him as the full reason.There is a car waiting to reverse into a parking place,another car waiting behind that as its blocking the road,there is nowhere to go and the road is blocked,but he still moves over to put himself right behing the second car,which as it turns out then starts to move to help the reversing parked car.Do you think he saw the road blocked and still moved to join it,or did he just not see it ?I dont think i would cross a junction that is blocked,would you?The sensible and safe thing to do is wait until it is clear isnt it?So he put himself in that situation,and its bad luck when the lady reversed into him,but then blames others for all of it.


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

Col!

Sorry about disappearing like that. As you can see from my recent manner of posting, I wasn't myself. I was in a blue funk. Luckily my batman, Jepp, intervened and was able to drag me away from the keyboard before I began to self harm. Jepp immediately sent a street-urchin out to fetch my doctor, who arrived just in time to administer leeches and a tincture of opium. While I drifted away to the land of morphia, he quickly contacted the editors of the Cyclechat electronic periodical who, fearing a writ from my solicitor, placed you quickly back on my ignore list.

You see col, this thread was going along nicely. The merits and demerits of helmet cameras were the topic of debate with sensible and interesting points being made on both sides. There was certainly not universal agreement on their use. But, while making what I thought were sensible, interesting points about camera use, I became aware of an unease. Where was col? Sure enough, one browser refresh later and it began.

As I scan my bookshelf, my eyes alight upon a thick, leather-bound copy of Herman Melville's 'Moby Dick'. Although dense and multi-layered, the book's central story concerns the whaler captain Ahab and his mono-maniacal pursuit of the white whale in search of revenge. Similarly, you have become cyclechat's Ahab, and Magnatom is your Moby Dick.

A key scene in the book occurs when Ahab nails a gold coin to the main mast and offers it to the first man to spy Moby Dick. I can't help but think you might have done something equally foolish with your full stop key?


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

col said:


> You should make a mags club,you could be the chair.
> Im seriously suggesting he made a dangerous mistake,your the one saying im suggesting things that i havnt said.Im going to surprise you too...........BOO




Ah, the answer of a true politician. So I will ask it again, in reply to you, until I get a direct answer...

Have you ever, ever said ANYTHING positive about my cycling, ever?


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> In fairness to col you can see the reversing lights of the first car as you go over the give way markings of the junction.
> 
> Was poor positioning from mag imo, why put yourself so close to the rear of a vehicle?




You are quite right Lee. On the video you can see the reverse lights of the silver car before I cross. However, note that as I cycle I am not watching a video, which I can replay over and over again to look at in detail. A few folk have suggested that on first, possibly second view of the video all they saw was a line of traffic. Also remember that my eyes move independant of my head (Eagle Eyes!) so where the camera looks is not where I am looking at all times. So approaching this junction I was keeping an eye on a number of things. Traffic coming from the right, the left, pedestians, bumps in the road, the car which appeared to me to be turning and moving out of my way etc.

So yes, I didn't see the car with the reverse lights on, but I don't think that was any great crime (I'm not suggesting that you are saying that Lee). So yes from an observational point of view I failed, but I would probably suggest that most others would have failed to spot that as well.

Even if they had, it is still a fair leap to consider that a car at that junction which, if you pull up behind (close because they stopped unexpectedly as I crossed a junction that I could not stop until I crossed it), would reverse. 

Maybe I should have done a Question of Sport, what happened next question on this video. I'd have been amazed if anyone would have predicted the reverse of the car even if I pause as late as 21 seconds.

P.S. Lee your posts are even in criticism are much better recently IMO. I glad I don't use ignore lists!


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

User3143 said:


> Does it really matter to you?



To me, no. But I'm just trying to show that Col is biased in relation to my cycling, for whatever reason. 

In our first few exchanges we didn't hit it off Lee, but I think you've mellowed a little, not in your views, but your approach to posting. I've also had a chance to read more of what you have to say, and so I can see where you are coming from. You have a point of view and you can back it up with reasoned argument. As would be expected with someone like this, you sometimes can also see my point of view. Col, can't and never will. That IMO is not due to reason, but due to some bias against me. I have no idea why though.


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

What is this bias?

Is it the way you ride?

We are all biased in our views in some way or other.Col thinks different and so do I.


----------



## magnatom (31 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> What is this bias?
> 
> Is it the way you ride?
> 
> We are all biased in our views in some way or other.Col thinks different and so do I.




Of course we are all biased, but Col appears to biased against me specifically. Just wonder why?


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2009)

Well I love you and BM


----------



## Bollo (31 Jan 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Well I love you and BM


Hay, hands off! You can have BM. He's not my type.


----------



## Plax (31 Jan 2009)

It looks like there is a concrete central reservation? If that is the case the black car should have waited patiently for the silver car to finish their manouvere rather than trying to drive round it on the approach to a central reservation. Clearly in another world. Having said that if I was the silver car and I wasn't blocking the road I might have waited for the black car to pass before starting to park up.

To be fair to Mags, on my first viewing of the video the black car does look like it is turning right so I'd probably haave done the same thing.


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> You are quite right Lee. On the video you can see the reverse lights of the silver car before I cross. However, note that as I cycle I am not watching a video, which I can replay over and over again to look at in detail. A few folk have suggested that on first, possibly second view of the video all they saw was a line of traffic. Also remember that my eyes move independant of my head (Eagle Eyes!) so where the camera looks is not where I am looking at all times. So approaching this junction I was keeping an eye on a number of things. Traffic coming from the right, the left, pedestians, bumps in the road, the car which appeared to me to be turning and moving out of my way etc.
> 
> 
> So yes, I didn't see the car with the reverse lights on, but I don't think that was any great crime (I'm not suggesting that you are saying that Lee). So yes from an observational point of view I failed, but I would probably suggest that most others would have failed to spot that as well.
> ...



Your using the reversing into you car as a red herring,first thing i saw was you crossing to a possible danger spot.It wasnt hard to see what was happening.




magnatom said:


> To me, no. But I'm just trying to show that Col is biased in relation to my cycling, for whatever reason.
> 
> In our first few exchanges we didn't hit it off Lee, but I think you've mellowed a little, not in your views, but your approach to posting. I've also had a chance to read more of what you have to say, and so I can see where you are coming from. You have a point of view and you can back it up with reasoned argument. As would be expected with someone like this, you sometimes can also see my point of view. Col, can't and never will. That IMO is not due to reason, but due to some bias against me. I have no idea why though.



Im posting my observations of your vids,if you posted a vid of you cycling otherwise id say so too.



magnatom said:


> Of course we are all biased, but Col appears to biased against me specifically. Just wonder why?




Wonder no more,im not,i just dissagree with what you post for us to watch,then blame others all the time it seems.When in my opinion you could have avoided most of these incidents.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Feb 2009)

Magnatom, what would you have done from start to finish in that video if you'd been driving a car?


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Magnatom, what would you have done from start to finish in that video if you'd been driving a car?




Its easy to say now,of course he would drive as we would expect,so i cant see the point of this after the fact?


----------



## magnatom (1 Feb 2009)

Col, have you answered my question yet? Or are you still searching?


----------



## BentMikey (1 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Its easy to say now,of course he would drive as we would expect,so i cant see the point of this after the fact?



Ah, but I know Magnatom will answer honestly and fairly, even if it's against him. You, on the other hand, I wonder.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Feb 2009)

Ouch.


----------



## magnatom (1 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Magnatom, what would you have done from start to finish in that video if you'd been driving a car?




Sorry BM. Missed this one.

Hmm. Actuallyin my current car (big 7 seater), I wouldn't have pulled across. It wouldn't accelarate as fast, and I wouldn't have had the space to turn. In a small car though,..mmmm, I dunno, probably. As you know a bike is more manoeuvrable and takes up less room so I am sure there are times when I would do something that even in a small car I wouldn't. Does that make it wrong though?


----------



## col (1 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Col, have you answered my question yet? Or are you still searching?



What question ?



BentMikey said:


> Ah, but I know Magnatom will answer honestly and fairly, even if it's against him. You, on the other hand, I wonder.




I suspect i know him differently,as i know you too as a liar and an underhand person who will twist things just so you can win an argument.


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I suspect i know him differently,as i know you too as a liar and an underhand person who will twist things just so you can win an argument.



Col, calling other people "liars" is low.


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col, calling other people "liars" is low.




He has called me a liar on a number of occasions. He never did say what I lied about though...

It would appear that anyone that disagrees with col becomes a liar.....oh wait a minute, I'm starting to sound like col now!


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> What question ?



No problem. I'll ask it again. 

Have you ever, ever said ANYTHING positive about my cycling, ever? 

(It is in post 79 for reference)


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I suspect i know him differently,as i know you too as a liar and an underhand person who will twist things just so you can win an argument.



That is uncalled for. Apart from anything else, you seem far too capable of willfully misunderstanding remarks so as to be insulted by them.


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> That is uncalled for. Apart from anything else, you seem far too capable of willfully misunderstanding remarks so as to be insulted by them.



Iv said i suspect which is the truth,only mag will know the truth of it. And you seem unable to understand what bent said.



Origamist said:


> Col, calling other people "liars" is low.



you dont say this to bent? I wonder why?



magnatom said:


> He has called me a liar on a number of occasions. He never did say what I lied about though...
> 
> .
> 
> It would appear that anyone that disagrees with col becomes a liar.....oh wait a minute, I'm starting to sound like col now!



I recall certain vids you did where this applied,you have a selective memory it seems.



magnatom said:


> No problem. I'll ask it again.
> 
> Have you ever, ever said ANYTHING positive about my cycling, ever?
> 
> (It is in post 79 for reference)



I wonder why you persist in wanting answers, when you ignore others questions?
But yes i have answered, if you look properly.


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> What's the point of a central reservation, if not to allow crossing in two stages?
> 
> When its safe i agree.
> 
> ...



It could be,why not stop until the dog is safely clear?


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> you dont say this to bent? I wonder why?



Because he's not going around calling people a liar - you are! That's why not. If he called you a liar, I'd say exactly the same to him...


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I recall certain vids you did where this applied,you have a selective memory it seems.



Col, I'm not keen to drag this up again, but if you have direct evidence of me lying, please post it here. I'm sure that others would been keen to know if I am a liar.



> I wonder why you persist in wanting answers, when you ignore others questions?
> But yes i have answered, if you look properly.



Not directly. Please answer it directly. I will and do happily answer questions. Please feel free to ask if you feel I have failed to answer one.


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Col, I'm not keen to drag this up again, but if you have direct evidence of me lying, please post it here. I'm sure that others would been keen to know if I am a liar.
> 
> Like i said at the time,you chose to pick that line and monopolised on it,only you know the truth of it.
> 
> ...



Thats a cracker


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Because he's not going around calling people a liar - you are! That's why not. If he called you a liar, I'd say exactly the same to him...




Im going round answering his insinuation,or is it ok to insinuate your a liar?


----------



## magnatom (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Thats a cracker



Please correct your quote of me. It looks like I am saying something I haven't. 

So you refuse to answer. Fair enough.


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Im going round answering his insinuation,or is it ok to insinuate your a liar?



I don't mind insinuations, Col - I'm a big boy.

*I want to see your evidence that BentMikey is a liar. It is a simple question, where is the evidence?*


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> I don't mind insinuations, Col - I'm a big boy.
> 
> *I want to see your evidence that BentMikey is a liar. It is a simple question, where is the evidence?*




Show me the evidence to insinuate it.Oh and im a big boy too


----------



## Arch (2 Feb 2009)

col said:


> It could be,why not stop until the dog is safely clear?



Because before it was called, it was going safely away from me, and I was going behind it, slowly. If I stopped everytime there was a dog within a couple of yards radius along that path, I might as well walk.


When you cross the road, on foot (assuming you do, sometimes), do you expect that once a car is past you, it will carry on doing so? Do you then cross, if nothing else is coming? Would you feel a bit surprised if it suddenly stopped and reversed into you?


----------



## Origamist (2 Feb 2009)

Col, you are avoiding my question. I always thought you were plain-speaking and straightforward. You are now being evasive - perhaps that's why BM insinuated that you were not likely to be as fair or honest as Magnatom?


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> Because before it was called, it was going safely away from me, and I was going behind it, slowly. If I stopped everytime there was a dog within a couple of yards radius along that path, I might as well walk.
> 
> 
> When you cross the road, on foot (assuming you do, sometimes), do you expect that once a car is past you, it will carry on doing so? Do you then cross, if nothing else is coming? Would you feel a bit surprised if it suddenly stopped and reversed into you?




A car yes,a dog no.



BentMikey said:


> Ah, but I know Magnatom will answer honestly and fairly, even if it's against him. You, on the other hand, I wonder.



Come on then bent,why would you wonder about my honesty?


----------



## col (2 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Please correct your quote of me. It looks like I am saying something I haven't.
> 
> So you refuse to answer. Fair enough.




You did say it,great quote for someone intent on educating.

Iv answered,but your playing childish games again


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> You did say it,great quote for someone intent on educating.
> 
> Iv answered,but your playing childish games again



I did not say



> Like i said at the time,you chose to pick that line and monopolised on it,only you know the truth of it.



In the previous post you make it look like I did.

The question was a simple yes/no answer, which you have failed to answer. You are always one to suggest people don't answer your questions. 

Pot. Kettle. Black.


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> A car yes,a dog no.




So you would be surprised if a car suddenly reversed into you? (I'm checking that's what you mean, in case you accuse me of making it up later).

Isn't this what happened to Magnatom? You've spent pages telling us he ought to have expected it and now you say it would surprise you!


----------



## Crackle (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> So you would be surprised if a car suddenly reversed into you? (I'm checking that's what you mean, in case you accuse me of making it up later).
> 
> Isn't this what happened to Magnatom? You've spent pages telling us he ought to have expected it and now you say it would surprise you!



Check mate, wrapped, parcelled and out for delivery Col. I'm waiting to see you wriggle out of this one.


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Check mate, wrapped, parcelled and out for delivery Col. I'm waiting to see you wriggle out of this one.



If there's one thing I've learned on forums, (fora?) it's that logic often doesn't work. For logic to work, your opponent must use logic themselves....

But thank you, at least I know I am right in my interpretation. Col will now tell me why I'm not...


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> So you would be surprised if a car suddenly reversed into you? (I'm checking that's what you mean, in case you accuse me of making it up later).
> 
> Isn't this what happened to Magnatom? You've spent pages telling us he ought to have expected it and now you say it would surprise you!



Iv never said he should have expected that car to reverse into him.would you like to point out where i spent ages doing this?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I did not say
> 
> 
> 
> ...




After you simply dont answer?,your a real card


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Check mate, wrapped, parcelled and out for delivery Col. I'm waiting to see you wriggle out of this one.



So you too think this,where do you get that from aswell?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> If there's one thing I've learned on forums, (fora?) it's that logic often doesn't work. For logic to work, your opponent must use logic themselves....
> 
> But thank you, at least I know I am right in my interpretation. Col will now tell me why I'm not...




I wont,because iv never said what you think your so clever in spotting


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Iv never said he should have expected that car to reverse into him.would you like to point out where i spent ages doing this?



Well, as I read it...



> she seemed to be giving way to a reversing car by doing the same,you didnt see it and made a mistake



You seem to be suggesting that Mags should have known she was reversing before her reversing lights lights came on, since they weren't on when he rode to the central reservation (and the parking car was not clearly visble then either, I think.)



> "Ridiculous example for you arch,if he had been watching ahead at what was happening he wouldnt have found himself in that position."



'watching ahead' presumably means ahead in time, since she was showing no sign of reversing when he moved behind her.

Both these imply to me that you think Mags should have expected the car to suddenly reverse direction, when t was showing no sign of doing so and therefore not to have gone behind it.

Which I guess was what Crackle though too, and I know whose opinion and logic I value more...


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> Well, as I read it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never suggested that once,and watching ahead as you so sarcastically put it means just that, ahead of you. The reversing car he should have seen was the one parking,i did make that quite clear. so this is " all the time" is it?B)
And crackle was agreeing with you,so you both seem similar in your logic then?


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col, you are avoiding my question. I always thought you were plain-speaking and straightforward. You are now being evasive - perhaps that's why BM insinuated that you were not likely to be as fair or honest as Magnatom?



Col, I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col, I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question...


Keep waiting then...


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Keep waiting then...



I was wondering where you got too?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> Col, I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question...




Ill answer when bent answers my question,as it was him that instigated this wondering about honesty.


----------



## Crackle (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> I never suggested that once,and watching ahead as you so sarcastically put it means just that, ahead of you. The reversing car he should have seen was the one parking,i did make that quite clear. so this is " all the time" is it?
> *And crackle was agreeing with you,so you both seem similar in your logic then*?



I was, because the thrust of your posts was that Maggers had made a mistake by not expecting the unexpected. A case of expected unexpected's and unexpected unexpected's. Crafty though, this suggestive approach you take always leaves you a bit of wriggle room.

You can phrase it any way you like. By suggesting Maggers should have seen the silver car reversing and therefore anticipated a situation where the other car started to reverse without looking but then deny that's what you meant by saying he made a mistake is being disingenuous. I know it, Maggers knows it, Arch knows it, who else knows it, hands up?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Feb 2009)

<virtual hand up in the air>


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> I was, because the thrust of your posts was that Maggers had made a mistake by not expecting the unexpected. A case of expected unexpected's and unexpected unexpected's. Crafty though, this suggestive approach you take always leaves you a bit of wriggle room.
> 
> You can phrase it any way you like. By suggesting Maggers should have seen the silver car reversing and therefore anticipated a situation where the other car started to reverse without looking but then deny that's what you meant by saying he made a mistake is being disingenuous. I know it, Maggers knows it, Arch knows it, who else knows it, hands up?




I never suggested this,you are,talk about trying to change the meaning of something to score points 

Oh and it wasnt unexpected of the parking car to reverse,it had its reversing lights on while it was stopped in the road


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> <virtual hand up in the air>


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> The reversing car he should have seen was the one parking



I still don't see how watching that parking car is supposed to tell him that the other car is suddenly going to reverse into him. If he'd gone and stood behind the car that was actually reversing, I'd agree, he'd be daft.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> I still don't see how watching that parking car is supposed to tell him that the other car is suddenly going to reverse into him. If he'd gone and stood behind the car that was actually reversing, I'd agree, he'd be daft.




Nor i arch,why did you assume this?
If he had seen the parking car,then he shouldnt have carried on,as it was blocking the road,and also he assumed the car that wasnt indicating,was going to turn right,assuming this when he is moving across the road is a dangerous mistake,and it was bore out by the fact that due to the parking car,the car he waited behind unexpectedly reversed into him.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Feb 2009)

All these pages of argument... basically the woman should have checked her mirror before reversing.

Simple as, really.


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Nor i arch,why did you assume this?



'Nor you' what? Sorry, I really don't understand this post.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> 'Nor you' what? Sorry, I really don't understand this post.



This has become evident


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> All these pages of argument... basically the woman should have checked her mirror before reversing.
> 
> Simple as, really.



She should have your right.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Feb 2009)

Why should she have my right?

How very odd.

She's welcome to it though, if she wants...


----------



## Crackle (3 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> All these pages of argument... basically the woman should have checked her mirror before reversing.
> 
> Simple as, really.



Or Maggers should've got the bus


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Or Maggers should've got the bus



+Or not pulled across to a blocked road maybe?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Why should she have my right?
> 
> How very odd.
> 
> She's welcome to it though, if she wants...




Ok then, she should have your left


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Ill answer when bent answers my question,as it was him that instigated this wondering about honesty.



It's those kind of diversionary/playground responses that make people wonder about your standards of honesty and fairness, Col - don't you see that?


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> +Or not pulled across to a blocked road maybe?




Col,

I have a spare video camera that you could borrow for a few weeks. So how about you filming your own rides then. Obviously you are far superior to anyone on here in your riding skills.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Feb 2009)

The Black VW driver had already tried to pull round the silver car when it started reversing and had to stop. This was the car to be watching.
Day to day road logic says she should have waited until there was room to proceed but, owing to what I will assume to be impatience, and seeing as she couldn't drive away any quicker because of the central reservation, she took hasty action without using all her mirrors.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> It's those kind of diversionary/playground responses that make people wonder about your standards of honesty and fairness, Col - don't you see that?



No.


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> The Black VW driver had already tried to pull round the silver car when it started reversing and had to stop. This was the car to be watching.
> Day to day road logic says she should have waited until there was room to proceed but, owing to what I will assume to be impatience, and seeing as she couldn't drive away any quicker because of the central reservation, she took hasty action without using all her mirrors.




Aye. It is because of the central reservation that I assumed that she would be turning. If she kept going the direction that she was going then she would mount it, thus I assumed she was turning. For any normal human being that would make sense....


----------



## Crackle (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Col,
> 
> I have a spare video camera that you could borrow for a few weeks. So how about you filming your own rides then. Obviously you are far superior to anyone on here in your riding skills.



But what we won't see is him indicating left, followed by right, followed by left, before braking and then accelerating straight on.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Col,
> 
> I have a spare video camera that you could borrow for a few weeks. So how about you filming your own rides then. Obviously you are far superior to anyone on here in your riding skills.




Thanks for the vote of confidence,but im not superior in any way,i just cycle differentally to you.
You had better ask bent what he thinks,as he wonders about my honesty,and you might not see your cam again?


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Thanks for the vote of confidence,but im not superior in any way,i just cycle differentally to you.
> You had better ask bent what he thinks,as he wonders about my honesty,and you might not see your cam again?




I'll take a risk with the camera. The offer is there.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Aye. It is because of the central reservation that I assumed that she would be turning. If she kept going the direction that she was going then she would mount it, thus I assumed she was turning. For any normal human being that would make sense....



Yup. The positioning of the cars as you reach that junction made me think that VW had stopped in the process of a(admittedly late)right hand turn in order to not clip the silver car.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> The Black VW driver had already tried to pull round the silver car when it started reversing and had to stop. This was the car to be watching.
> Day to day road logic says she should have waited until there was room to proceed but, owing to what I will assume to be impatience, and seeing as she couldn't drive away any quicker because of the central reservation, she took hasty action without using all her mirrors.




It was a dangerous scenario to join,which is why i would have held back till it cleared.You just dont know,so why risk it?


----------



## Origamist (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> No.



That might explain why so many people have you on ignore, or why you get enmeshed in so many arguments. Just a thought.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> I'll take a risk with the camera. The offer is there.




Im damned if i do,damned if i dont eh? Let me think about it, and ill let you know, because it isnt something i would normally do, and they are expensive pieces of kit.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Origamist said:


> That might explain why so many people have you on ignore, or why you get enmeshed in so many arguments. Just a thought.




Or it could be i argue a point, and dissagree in some cases?
But you have to agree, its entertaining at least isnt it?


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Or it could be i argue a point, and dissagree in some cases?
> But you have to agree, its entertaining at least isnt it?



I'm not sure entertaining is the word, no...

Only as much as a nagging itch is entertaining...


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Im damned if i do,damned if i dont eh? Let me think about it, and ill let you know, because it isnt something i would normally do, and they are expensive pieces of kit.




Not really, I would give you my flycamone2 which was fairly cheap. It only films for about 15 minutes until the battery runs out, although I have considered buying the additional battery pack. 

I'm not sure why you think you are damned if you do. This suggests that you know your cycling is below par...


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Or it could be i argue a point, and dissagree in some cases?
> But you have to agree, its entertaining at least isnt it?




Hmmm. Apparently some people find watching car crashes entertaining...


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Feb 2009)

If I were to expect the worst in every single scenario as you suggest, I'd never leave the house.

It is not without the realms of logical thought that motorists might need to smarten their act up, which we as cyclists can help with by not becoming passive and invisible.
Not to counter the cyclist awareness level of your average driver is to allow this kind of driving to continue and encourage bad practice.


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Arch said:


> I'm not sure entertaining is the word, no...
> 
> Only as much as a nagging itch is entertaining...



Well yes, i suppose your right, when its the ones who dissagree that much that they try to find different meanings in my post to try and show me in the wrong.
But then it might be for everyone else?

And i hope you appreciate my efforts with spacing?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> Not really, I would give you my flycamone2 which was fairly cheap. It only films for about 15 minutes until the battery runs out, although I have considered buying the additional battery pack.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think you are damned if you do. This suggests that you know your cycling is below par...




Its a figure of speach, as a joke, but then i should have expected you to jump straight on that with a derogatory remark shouldnt i.


----------



## magnatom (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Its a figure of speach, as a joke, but then i should have expected you to jump straight on that with a derogatory remark shouldnt i.




But why use a figure of speech if you don't mean it?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> If I were to expect the worst in every single scenario as you suggest, I'd never leave the house.
> 
> It is not without the realms of logical thought that motorists might need to smarten their act up, which we as cyclists can help with by not becoming passive and invisible.
> Not to counter the cyclist awareness level of your average driver is to allow this kind of driving to continue and encourage bad practice.





An over the top example there.Some times there are times when it would be dangerous to continue,this seemed one to me.
As for countering average drivers awareness,again i believe its a drop in the ocean, and wont make much difference in the whole scheme of things, but we have already talked about options which would do more.


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Well yes, i suppose your right, when its the ones who dissagree that much that they try to find different meanings in my post to try and show me in the wrong.
> But then it might be for everyone else?
> 
> And i hope you appreciate my efforts with spacing?



Yes, it is better. Now, if you can put a line break between paragraphs...


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

magnatom said:


> But why use a figure of speech if you don't mean it?




The same as i mean when telling a joke, Do you see what your doing? i do


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> An over the top example there. Some times there are times when it would be dangerous to continue, this seemed one to me.
> As for countering average drivers awareness,again i believe its a drop in the ocean, and wont make much difference in the whole scheme of things, but we have already talked about options which would do more.




It didnt work.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2009)

col said:


> Ill answer when bent answers my question,as it was him that instigated this wondering about honesty.




Err no I didn't. The first one came from you implying Magnatom wouldn't tell the truth after the fact:



col said:


> Its easy to say now,of course he would drive as we would expect,so i cant see the point of this after the fact?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Err no I didn't. The first one came from you implying Magnatom wouldn't tell the truth after the fact:




So your his babysitter now are you? What was your reason?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

User3143 said:


> Give it a rest col, the way this thread is going it'll soon be GWB time.



Whats GWB ?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Feb 2009)

Green Wheelie Bin?


----------



## col (3 Feb 2009)

Oh i see. Im answering to posts, i didnt see it that way.


----------

