Video: Van driver filmed swerving at cyclist

Mungecrundle wrote:

Van driver momentarily drifts to the left. Suddenly realising that he has no visibility due to lacking a nearside mirror, and anticipating that there could possibly be a cyclist in that danger zone he takes emergency evasive action by violently, and with no thought for his own safety, swinging his van to the right and into the path of oncoming traffic. Surprised at the appearance of a cyclist who has now overtaken him on the right, he accelerates as hard as his van will go in order to catch up with the cyclist in order to offer his profuse apologies and a free months subscription by way of making amends before the cyclist slips away up the inside of the stationary traffic queue. He gets so close to the back wheel of the bike that he is caught out by the drafting effect. The inept cyclist is completely oblivious to the fact that he is literally sucking the van onto his own back wheel and certain destruction. Fortunately our heroic van driver is at the top of his game and still able to come to a screeching emergency stop just before colliding with the rear of the car in front.

In many respects the cyclist was damned lucky that the van driver was so highly skilled at the art of van driving. I hope the Police are able to track him down and give him the nbrus award for outstanding vanmanship.

Interesting theory, but implausible ... there is no nbrus award for outstanding vanmanship.

Something else to consider ... the cyclist hasn't reported the incident ... might that be because he was satisfied with the drivers explanation/apology? Neither do I see any aggression between the two parties following the event. The van driver doesn't try to cut the cyclist down when he is overtaken a second time and the cyclist doesn't appear nervous of overtaking the van a second time. Maybe the person that posted the video already knows this, but decided that he could earn some cash by posting it on you-tube and stirring things up?

alansmurphy wrote:

The driver should NOT have tried to execute an overtake, the traffic in front is stopped and there wasn't the gap to do so. If you think that he can execute an overtake then he hasn't done it with the required care and attention. Either way it is dangerous / careless / wreck less driving. The other 10 excuses you've come up with either make the driver or you a bellend...

Didn't the cyclist also execute an overtake? Would that not also make him a bellend? Overtaking a vehicle that is overtaking another vehicle ... just saying.

And I agree that the driver should NOT have tried to execute that maneouver, given his limited visibility ... and now thinking about it, how was he going to pull in safely if his left mirror was missing? ... so yes, I've changed my mind ... he was wreckless (assuming he was going for an overtake). That van should not have been on the road. However, there was no malicious intent, which was the main point of discussion in this thread. I'm not sure about your penguin theory though.

Mixing it with traffic is dangerous ... it scares me ... the cycle path on the right might have been a safer place to ride ... I'd have been on that.

alansmurphy wrote:

You haven't suggested a potential heart attack yet, maybe that happened. Escaped penguin from the zoo turned the wheel. A customer (on speaker phone obviously) told him Virgin was a valued service and had good connection. Keep digging...

A potential heart attack? Implausible as the driver clearly manages to continue driving after the event and even has enough time to stop and chat.

Penguin turned the wheel? Again implausible ... who was operating the pedals?

Virgin having happy customers? Again implausible ... too expensive and keep putting up prices.

fatsmoker wrote:

Another one with no update as to what happened. Does Road.cc know what the Virgin investigation decided abou ttheir employee (hopefully ex-employee)?

No. The site puts this shit up to get clicks which earns ad revenue and then does fuck all.

don simon wrote:

Noelieboy wrote:

This is exactly my commute home!

30 mins earlier and it probably would've been me being filmed. The traffic on this road backs up for a long way as there are 2 sets of traffic lights in a very short space. On the RHS is a multiuse path for cyclists and pedestrians but this is normally only used by cyclists who are going in the other direction, most cyclists stay on the road when going in the direction that this cyclist is going in.  

What an absolutely idiotic manoeuver by the van driver.  He is obviously annoyed that he’s going to be stuck in traffic for around 20mins and wasn’t happy that a cyclist was going to overtake him.

Those commercial vans all have stickers on them now pointing to the LHS stating how it’s dangerous to undertake, what are you supposed to do???

 

Don't some van drivers even claim that cyclists should hang back as they cannot be seen? This one had no problems seeing cyclist as was able to use mirrors to great effect.

#NoBlindSpot

Anyone cycling around there (except when traffic is crawling) is braver than me, it's bad enough driving.

I'm not entirely certain, but it appears that the van's passenger side wing mirror has been knocked off and there is just a circle of grey plastic there?

All too common to see people driving with no mirrors, or with them still folded in from  being parked.

Rich_cb wrote:

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

or if you go with the doobiest of all the brothers...

What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

nbrus wrote:

If it were malice then he would be touting his horn and stopping to have an argument, but instead he remains calm, so you may be correct.

[/quote]

You've obviously not met that many people who have acted out of malice, I envy you.  I've come across plenty of people who appear calm while putting my life in danger with their vehicle, goading for a reaction while smirking and getting off on it.  Not everyone blasts their horn either so don't expect every angry person to react in the same way.

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Like Columbo, I'm back for more. Your defence is that he knows he can't see left of his vehicle so he's trying to give a bit more room to the cyclist down the left. How did he know the cyclist was on his left?

He didn't, but there are cyclists on the cycle path on the right going by at the time he makes this maneouver ... maybe they reminded him that cyclists might also be on the road behind him?

An embarrassing display of apologist mental gymnastics.

nbrus wrote:

... the cycle path on the right might have been a safer place to ride ... I'd have been on that.

Yes, yes you should, why don't you pop off now and get on it?

gonedownhill wrote:

don simon wrote:

Noelieboy wrote:

This is exactly my commute home!

30 mins earlier and it probably would've been me being filmed. The traffic on this road backs up for a long way as there are 2 sets of traffic lights in a very short space. On the RHS is a multiuse path for cyclists and pedestrians but this is normally only used by cyclists who are going in the other direction, most cyclists stay on the road when going in the direction that this cyclist is going in.  

What an absolutely idiotic manoeuver by the van driver.  He is obviously annoyed that he’s going to be stuck in traffic for around 20mins and wasn’t happy that a cyclist was going to overtake him.

Those commercial vans all have stickers on them now pointing to the LHS stating how it’s dangerous to undertake, what are you supposed to do???

 

Don't some van drivers even claim that cyclists should hang back as they cannot be seen? This one had no problems seeing cyclist as was able to use mirrors to great effect.

#NoBlindSpot

Anyone cycling around there (except when traffic is crawling) is braver than me, it's bad enough driving.

 

I'm not entirely certain, but it appears that the van's passenger side wing mirror has been knocked off and there is just a circle of grey plastic there?

All too common to see people driving with no mirrors, or with them still folded in from  being parked.

Looks like you're correct. Which make me question how the driver knew the bike was coming up on the inside.

The swerve to the left, crossing the white line to try and stop the rider and then the acceleration to have a second blocking attempt point to this driver facing a ban. Let's hope we get a follow up with good news.

The only problem I think is that the driver will blame the cyclist for any employment problems caused and be worse in the future.

NorthEastJimmy wrote:

You've obviously not met that many people who have acted out of malice, I envy you.  I've come across plenty of people who appear calm while putting my life in danger with their vehicle, goading for a reaction while smirking and getting off on it.  Not everyone blasts their horn either so don't expect every angry person to react in the same way.

Its difficult to be certain about anything, but thanks for the tips.

kitsunegari wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Like Columbo, I'm back for more. Your defence is that he knows he can't see left of his vehicle so he's trying to give a bit more room to the cyclist down the left. How did he know the cyclist was on his left?

He didn't, but there are cyclists on the cycle path on the right going by at the time he makes this maneouver ... maybe they reminded him that cyclists might also be on the road behind him?

An embarrassing display of apologist mental gymnastics.

Here's another one...

The van driver sees a gap in the traffic and moves to overtake the car in front. As he does this he catches a glimpse of the cylist in his right mirror, so he immediately tries to turn back in to avoid a collision. This might actually be a better explanation ... in fact I'm convinced we've now found the answer.

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists. Please note that this driver only had a right mirror and was mostly blind to what was behind him. The cyclist came out from nowhere and quickly. The driver was taken by surprise.

This is why we have debates ... it allows us to get to a better answer. It was someone else in an earlier post that spotted the missing mirror ... and that one thing has been key to understanding this puzzle.

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

nbrus wrote:

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'?

I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter.

As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site).

Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

Go read what I said again ... you've obviously put your own interpretation on things ... I said none of the things you are suggesting and have no intention of getting into an argument with you.

I would also like to make clear that I don't know what actually happend here and neither does anyone else. The best we can do is examine the evidence and come up with the most plausible answer. If you have a better more plausible view regarding the incident then please can you share it with the rest of us and we'll try and pick it apart to reach a better conclusion? Or maybe you've simply decided to pick sides with no real arguments to back up your view, except maybe attacking anyone that proposes a view different to your own? Would that be about right?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

That's FK's modus operandi - putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.

Kadinkski wrote:

 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

That's FK's modus operandi - putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.

 

It's more that some people's arguments are confused to the point where they don't seem to understand the meaning of their own words.

Kadinkski wrote:

That's FK's modus operandi - putting words into the mouths of others. I find it very odd to be honest.

Thanks for that info. I wouldn't mind if FK had something useful to say, but they seem more intent on stirring things up rather than contributing usefully.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

brooksby wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point is we all make mistakes sometimes and it doesn't mean we are incompetent drivers. Experience makes us better drivers/cyclists.

Just checking, but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed to allow a driver to become a better driver? Is there, like, an exchange rate or something?  

Was anyone killed here? Dangerous drivers should not be on the road. In the case being discussed here, did the driver really do anything wrong or was this just a case of an unfortunate sequence of events and circumstances?

So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? I was undecided whether you were arguing in good faith or were just a disguised petrolhead, but that argument pushes me to the latter. As for your second question - that's what the police and justice system are supposed to determine. Ideally they'd be doing that. Possibly they would if the cyclist involved made an official complaint. But he might consider it a waste of time to do so, not least as he may not even know there's video of it (I don't see how he would, unless he happens to read this site). Did you post similar points on threads about the Putney jogger, by the way? Lots of commentators seemed to think he acted deliberately. Did you warn about 'lynch mobs' on those threads too?

Go read what I said again ... you've obviously put your own interpretation on things ... I said none of the things you are suggesting and have no intention of getting into an argument with you.

I would also like to make clear that I don't know what actually happend here and neither does anyone else. The best we can do is examine the evidence and come up with the most plausible answer. If you have a better more plausible view regarding the incident then please can you share it with the rest of us and we'll try and pick it apart to reach a better conclusion? Or maybe you've simply decided to pick sides with no real arguments to back up your view, except maybe attacking anyone that proposes a view different to your own? Would that be about right?

The interpretation I find more likely has already been made several times in this thread - but dismissed by you as 'a lynch mob' (despite the complete absence of any actual lynching or prospect thereof). You felt obliged to come up with an alternative interpretation, and then seem to have trouble accepting that some might not find yours to be the most plausible one.

The main point is, no, we don't know exactly what happened here. That's why it the ideal outcome would be for it to be investigated, and in the absence of that, not everyone has to accept your explanation as the most likely one.

And I'm afraid you did clearly say that 'noone was killed' as if you think that changes the principle involved.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 The interpretation I find more likely has already been made several times in this thread - but dismissed by you as 'a lynch mob' (despite the complete absence of any actual lynching or prospect thereof). You felt obliged to come up with an alternative interpretation, and then seem to have trouble accepting that some might not find yours to be the most plausible one. The main point is, no, we don't know exactly what happened here. That's why it the ideal outcome would be for it to be investigated, and in the absence of that, not everyone has to accept your explanation as the most likely one. And I'm afraid you did clearly say that 'noone was killed' as if you think that changes the principle involved.

Can you please requote the post you are referring to? I'm pretty sure I didn't reply to it and dismiss it as 'lynch mob'.

And in that post are you merely stating an opinion, or do you have arguments backing up your opinion and why it is the most plausible one?

I have no problem at all in accepting your opinion provided you can back it up with plausible arguments. If you can't then its worthless.

Also, and I am NOT having a go at you, but how on earth can you go from my responding to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed"  by asking "Was anyone killed here?" ... and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them). Which implies 'sacrificing' that victim in the cause of finally doing something about the bad driver who could have been addressed earlier.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them).

You're putting words in my mouth again ... maybe you can't help it, so I'll try and explain. Firstly, I agree with everything you just said.  I will also requote myself " Dangerous drivers should not be on the road." The point of contention is whether or not this driver was driving dangerously, or did the cyclist take unneccessary risk, or was it a case of bad timing and unfortunate circumstances?

Everything happened so fast ... the driver couldn't see what was behind him (broken left mirror), the cyclist appeared out from nowhere as the driver executed an overtaking maneouvre, the driver then tried to avoid a collision when he noticed the cyclist in his right mirror.

If you were driving that van could this same situation not have happened to you?

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

how on earth can you go from "Was anyone killed here?" in response to "but how many cyclists (or pedestrians, for that matter) are allowed to be sacrificed" and you managed to turn this into "So you are of the school that says 'don't do anything until someone dies'? " ... what I was trying to say is that is that this wasn't relevent to the discussion.

But as I see it, it is relevant, because cyclists or pedestrians don't get killed with the first bit of bad driving someone engages in - it more often happens because someone has gotten away with dangerous acts for a while and has acquired a habit of driving like that.

Ergo, if you are arguing that dangerous acts that don't lead to a fatality can be excused without sanction, and forgiven because 'everyone makes mistakes' then you are accepting that we only do anything about those drivers when they actually kill someone (or injure them).

You're putting words in my mouth again ... maybe you can't help it, so I'll try and explain. Firstly, I agree with everything you just said.  I will also requote myself " Dangerous drivers should not be on the road." The point of contention is whether or not this driver was driving dangerously, or did the cyclist take unneccessary risk, or was it a case of bad timing and unfortunate circumstances? Everything happened so fast. If you were driving that van could this same situation not have happened to you?

The sudden swing right was dangerous. Not having a wing mirror isn't exactly safe either. If every such instance were to be excused, and more importantly, ignored, because someone could construct an alternative explanation that it was just 'bad timing' then little would ever get done about bad drivers.

At no point have I said the driver should be banned or jailed (yet alone 'lynched') without investigation or a chance to explain, incidentally. I'm saying on balance a deliberate act looks very plausible and even if accidental was objectively dangerous and can't be simply dismissed as self-evidently not requiring any sanction.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The sudden swing right was dangerous. Not having a wing mirror isn't exactly safe either. If every such instance were to be excused, and more importantly, ignored, because someone could construct an alternative explanation that it was just 'bad timing' then little would ever get done about bad drivers.

At no point have I said the driver should be banned or jailed (yet alone 'lynched') without investigation or a chance to explain, incidentally. I'm saying on balance a deliberate act looks very plausible and even if accidental was objectively dangerous and can't be simply dismissed as self-evidently not requiring any sanction.

The van driver goes to overtake the car in front, he checks his mirror, all is clear, he executes the maneouver, checks the view in front, looks back again and spots a cyclist on his right, he immediately pulls back in to avoid a collision. Conclusion: He's a dangerous driver and shouldn't be allowed on the road.

If it was a deliberate act of aggression, then yes he should be punished accordingly, but go read my posts discussing this and review the video footage referred to in my post ... are you still convinced that this was a deliberate act? If you've not reviewed my posts and arguments, then there is nothing more to discuss. You'll find them on page 4 (one discusses video footage and lack of mirror, other has possible explanation of the violent right swing maneouver, though I've already summarised that above).

And please note FK that I am NOT picking on you ... in fact I agree with what you have said (mostly), so maybe we're just not understanding each other correctly. I'm not sure what the solution to that is as I don't really want to go back and forth arguing over nothing. Lets leave it at that.

nbrus wrote:

Another possibility is that the van driver doesn't want to let the cyclist overtake him as then he will be forced to travel at 15 mph when the cyclist hogs the lane making it difficult to get past.

OK, I'll bite:

- The van is crawling along at less than walking pace in a huge queue of traffic.

- The road is wide enough that the van would easily be able to overtake a cyclist, just as it's plenty wide enough for the cyclist to overtake the van if the driver wasn't a prick.

- No cyclist would put himself in danger by swerving across the road to prevent being overtaken by two tons of moving van.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the traffic disappears, the road narrows and the cyclist swerves around for no good reason, does any of that justify the actions of the van driver that could easily have resulted in serious injury or death?

Enough polite reasoning - you're either a troll or a moron.  Probably both.

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

He executed the maneuver exactly as he intended it.  It was a purposeful block, followed by an even more aggressive block seeing as the first attempt failed.

By any chance Spen do you happen to work for Virgin Media, driving a van with the registration YE61YMT? 

srchar wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Another possibility is that the van driver doesn't want to let the cyclist overtake him as then he will be forced to travel at 15 mph when the cyclist hogs the lane making it difficult to get past.

OK, I'll bite:

- The van is crawling along at less than walking pace in a huge queue of traffic.

- The road is wide enough that the van would easily be able to overtake a cyclist, just as it's plenty wide enough for the cyclist to overtake the van if the driver wasn't a prick.

- No cyclist would put himself in danger by swerving across the road to prevent being overtaken by two tons of moving van.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the traffic disappears, the road narrows and the cyclist swerves around for no good reason, does any of that justify the actions of the van driver that could easily have resulted in serious injury or death?

Enough polite reasoning - you're either a troll or a moron.  Probably both.

The mere fact that someone puts forward some reasoning for why the van driver may have behaved in a particular manner (i.e. in an attempt to try and understand the situation), does not mean that they agree with what happened.

Ok, I'll admit that my post looked like bait, and it worked ... you took the bait. It was a valid point none the less, and you countered my comment with an alternative view ... congratulations, that is the point of debate. Chances are we would never have heard your views had you not taken the bait.

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

"Incompetence not malice"  

("Psst, wanna buy a bridge...?")

brooksby wrote:

spen wrote:

Gift where have I been an apologist for the driver, he's an incompetent idiot but not a psychopathic axe murder!  The fact that you can't properly execute the maneouver he attempted just shows his lack of skill and judgement.

 

There are frankly far too many people on here far too willing to play the victim.

 

It's incompetence not malice, get over it.

"Incompetence not malice"  

("Psst, wanna buy a bridge...?")

...monthly subscription to "Kool Aid Drinkers Anonymous"...
Malice forethought....