From: Harry Bloomfield on 19 Apr 2010 11:36
on 19/04/2010, MrBitsy supposed :
> Even though the other driver did go right, you still argue all the signs were
> for him to go left.
As I read the account, all the signs WERE there for him to go left -
there was a 1 in ? chance of him going right. ? meaning a slightly
increased chance to what I would consider a normal risk.
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
From: MrBitsy on 19 Apr 2010 16:03
On 19/04/2010 16:36, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> on 19/04/2010, MrBitsy supposed :
>> Even though the other driver did go right, you still argue all the
>> signs were for him to go left.
> As I read the account, all the signs WERE there for him to go left -
> there was a 1 in ? chance of him going right. ? meaning a slightly
> increased chance to what I would consider a normal risk.
You surprise me - a car going unusually slowly at a turn off should be
getting a bit more attention than normal. The slow speed plus the other
hazards were a pretty clear sign - don't go to the right of this guy!
From: MrBitsy on 20 Apr 2010 16:48
On 20/04/2010 10:39, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:09:04 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
>> don't suppose you can add helpful advice that I would take if it seems
>> to aid safe driving?
> you have not been constructive.
Of course not - it showed how your anticipation could be improved, and
many drivers don't like to be told anything.
From: MrBitsy on 20 Apr 2010 17:01
On 20/04/2010 10:08, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:22:06 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
>> You were caught out and really don't like advice.
> I like realistic advice, not condescending rubbish based on the
> assumption you are the only one with a clue and baseless accusations
> like "I think you can rely on indicators" and childish accusations
> that "I do not understand anticipation", not to mention your
> conclusion that your analysis must be the only possible one as the
> incident occurred, which is totally illogical.
Your logic is now flawed. I have never said my analysis is the only
possible view. I came to the conclusion your anticipation is poor,
because despite almost crashing, you still insist it is a logical
thought the car will go left. Yes, in other conditions, different road
layout and traffic levels, it be almost 100% safe to think a car will go
left when indicating left. In the scenario you described (where you
almost crashed), you missed vital clues.
I just pointed out it appeared to me there was a better way to approach
this kind of scenario.
> You have put huge emphasis on one tiny aspect,
> from a wish to find fault
If you don't want comments, don't post!
> the reality is that a car at a junction, slowing and indicating
> left is likely to go left, according to you its blindingly clear it
> will go right,
Well hold on a minute. In the scenario you posted, it was clear to me
as I read, that this car may go right. You were very clear on the
details. If you want to move the goal posts to another road, with no
hazards and no car showing the clues like the one you met, I may agree
> something that never happened to me in 40 years of safe driving.
Luck, other drivers avoiding you or good driving on your part? I would
suggest it is all three, as ALL of us need all three.
> Also you accusation I was not concentrating on the car is
> plucked out of the air, as I avoided it.
You just avoided it, as it was the 'closest' you had ever had. Given
you just avoided it, are you just going to say the other driver was an
idiot, or will you also say 'how could I have help mitigate that close
> How do you think I did that?
Luck, skill, chance? Who knows, but could you have done better on the day?
> By fiddling with the radio? Or by being aware of its presence and the
> availability of road space around me?
Your awareness could have been better - if it couldn't be improved at
all, how did you find yourself in the 'closest scrape ever'?
From: MrBitsy on 20 Apr 2010 17:03
On 20/04/2010 10:23, Bod wrote:
> MrBitsy wrote:
>> On 20/04/2010 09:59, ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:14:16 +0100, MrBitsy<ray.keattch(a)infinity.com>
>>>> How can it be ridiculous when it actually happened?
>>> you really don't get logic, do you?
>>> I will try and spell it out:-
>>> An incident happened, that is factual.
>>> You made an analysis of that incident. That is just an opinion.
>>> Mine is different.
>>> The fact the incident happened does not prove your analysis correct.
>> Ok, that is lovely and clear. You nearly crashed and learnt nothing
>> from it.
> I'm pretty sure he has learnt from it. I would bet that in the same
> scenario, in future he'll be even more wary.
> He doesn't need it highlighting.
If he doesn't want it highlighting, why did he post about it on a
He doesn't appear to have learnt from it at all. After all, even though
his driving plan put him into the path of a twit, he still keeps saying
it is logical, in that scenario, to say the car would go left.