You utter idiot.
"that prick in the shorts could have caused a pile up the prick"

YOU would have caused the pile up. Nobody but you (or your mrs) chose to overtake the cyclist at that point. It wouldn't have been the cyclist's fault that you chose to act like a massive twatbag and drive into the path of an oncoming truck, because you were too impatient to wait for a safe moment to pass the cyclist.

Just because a cycle path is there doesn't mean the cyclists have to use them. Especially when they're often the bit down the side of the road where all the broken glass and litter is swept. The cyclist was trying to keep himself safe. You were not.
( sanityclause is waiting until, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 12:33, 3 replies)

^ owns little shorts and a stupid fucking little hat

( Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 13:00, closed)

^reads Daily Mail

(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 13:24, closed)

^ is a stupid bum-head

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 13:32, closed)

^ edits Daily Mail

(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:28, closed)

Hahahahhahahaha
You're funny.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 13:35, closed)

eh you wha?
what part of he was in the middle of the road (a FUCKING DUAL CARRIAGEWAY) do you not understand? going 30mph slower than every other road user, being a danger to himself and everyone around him

if he'd left room to get around him it would have been fine, instead all traffic in that lane slowed drastically and other arseholes swerved out making it unsafe to pass. if he hadn't been doing it at rush hour i might have given the cycle helmeted prick some credit
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 14:25, closed)

Your real problem is this

"my mrs tried to get round him but a massive truck came flying round the corner,"

166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching

a corner or bend
a hump bridge
the brow of a hill
(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:01, closed)

no the problem was that the cyclist was in the middle of the road
causing the truck to have to swing out as it wouldn't have been able to stop in time

you stupid lycra wearing shitcunt
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:04, closed)

^What fat boy said^
If you're going to cycle on the dual carriageway, you'd better be on the left hand side, and prepared to resemble mince at some point, if you're not going to use the cycle lane.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 15:11, closed)

All cyclist mince.
Because cycling makes you gay.

And, if anyone doubts this, I've carried out extensive research based on my own prejudices and also that of others who think men in coloured lycra are a bit suspect.

Science.
( Infidel , shit and wrong, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:13, closed)

Because cycle lanes are compulsory? Try reading the Highway Code.
(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:36, closed)

You aren't being very clear here. If you were on a dual carriage way and the danger was a head on collision one or other of you must have broken the law by crossing the central reservation so it would be the fault of whoever did that.

If it was the truck moving from the nearside lane to the outside lane to pass the cyclist putting you in danger then it's the truck drivers fault for not leaving sufficient room to brake safely / not checking his mirrors before manoeuvring.
(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 16:33, closed)

you're thick i'm not responding to you anymore
i hope you fall under a truck and get hit by a bus
(Quintno EXPERIMENT RUINED CANCELLED, LEFT 4EVER, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:24, closed)

lol, internet

( sanityclause is waiting until, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:54, closed)

Winner
(chilling, Fri 17 Feb 2012, 18:37, closed)