horizon wrote:Yes it is relevant. The driver wanted to overtake but couldn't (in the section of road leading up to the altercation).
But she could if he'd let her.
Where he stopped he deliberately blocked her car just before a big enough gap on both sides of the road,which made an already fraught situation worse.
She tailgated him and it was this that led him to confront the driver. But she didn't need to overtake and should not have wished to go faster than his speed.
No she didn't need to overtake,and her driving was intimidating,so I agree in principle
However,as it turned out JV ended up goading an already unstable person who as it turned out was on a short fuse.Who,though he'd no way of knowing at the time,was driving an illegal car.
It's a possible recipe for disaster for him,in what could have been a very physical manner.
And it's not his place to stop the progress of anyone unless his or someone else is immediately in danger.
What I am saying is that the whole politeness/overtaking/letting-her-past/avoiding-confrontation/being-nice-to-each-other thing is a complete red herring.
But that wasn't my point,my point was one of letting a loonie get of my face with the least obstruction to them and least disruption to me because
it would've been the best thing under the circumstances.
I tried and thought I'd make that clear in previous posts,sorry if there was any confusion.
The fact is that she was driving too fast for the road and his speed was quite adequate for the conditions.
I agree(again)but he's not a policeman(though it could be argued we all should be),why would you put yourself in possible jeopardy by purposely and deliberately stopping a car that was already being driven aggressively behind you,when you could with little or no cost to yourself,simply allow it to pass?
And in fact, she couldn't overtake.
Because as I posted above,JV blocked her path,which probably made this loonie worse.
Except to avoid aggression, JV did the right thing by everyone.
No,IMHO he made matters worse.
IMO,if the UK police were reliable in responding to this sort of incident,instead of sweeping it under the carpet,due to being completely overwhelmed and undermanned and if the judicial system were serious about vehicle crime,such loonies would be removed from our roads.
As it is they're not and are aggressive because they know it's an odds on bet they won't get caught.
It's already been mentioned up thread that the vehicle has no VED,and that the owner may not have registered it in their name,if that's the case then who's to say if it's insured or not?
On the face of it all things being equal and all people being genuine and upright,there'd be no problem,however this is the state of the UK today where people can quite literally get away with murder,where cyclists and pedestrians are run over and the perpaetrator simply drives off.
Here's a scenario that if I were a dishonest man I could get away with quite easily:-
In a visit to a town or city in another part of the country I note a small hatchback,or even a couple of them in different areas,and make a note of their reg numbers.
I then go and buy a similar car,it could be a nice little black Corsa.
I give the previous owner a false name and address,and fail to notify the DVLA of change of ownership.I then illicitly buy a pair of number plates to match the ones I've made a note of and fit them to my 'new' car.
If I drive sensibly I can drive around in it and no one knows any difference.
If I'm devious enough I'll change the plates now and again for other reg numbers,but because I'm a git I'll probably bully people who I think deserve it,ie;possibly cyclists,because they're fair game and can't catch me.
It's that simple.
I've reported three cars in as many years for aggression toward me when cycling,which according to the police didn't even check out to a similar vehicle
I'll repeat TC's sig again:- "gang warily",because you never know who you might 'bump' into.