This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Usual wonderful support from the boys in blue
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/road-eager-let-off-cos-of-police-rules-suf...
Alan
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/road-eager-let-off-cos-of-police-rules-suf...
Alan
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Astonishing, looks like the same van he passed at 12s must have chased him for nearly a mile, and that is only worth a caution, and no motoring offenses?
Astonishing, looks like the same van he passed at 12s must have chased him for nearly a mile, and that is only worth a caution, and no motoring offenses?
In reply to Alan Taylor:
This sort of response to road rage not likely to help encourage cyclists, is it...?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cut-speed-limits-to-get-milli...
Just watched the video. What do you have to do to get charged with something?
This sort of response to road rage not likely to help encourage cyclists, is it...?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cut-speed-limits-to-get-milli...
Just watched the video. What do you have to do to get charged with something?
In reply to Alan Taylor:
It's hardly a surprise that violent crime is in reduction if incidents such as that aren't classified as such. Quite unbelievable really.
It's hardly a surprise that violent crime is in reduction if incidents such as that aren't classified as such. Quite unbelievable really.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Just defies belief.
I think if that happened to me and the police failed to take any action and the 'resolution' didn't bring about a sincere apology. I would be very un-happy.
Toby
Just defies belief.
I think if that happened to me and the police failed to take any action and the 'resolution' didn't bring about a sincere apology. I would be very un-happy.
Toby
In reply to Alan Taylor: I note that the work webpage is no longer accepting anything on the contacts page, wonder why?
In reply to Alan Taylor: If the headcam mirrors the cyclist's vision, he seems to have remarkably little care about other road users.
In reply to Alan Taylor: Unbelievable... Since i havnt got a criminal record i might go punch cameron in the face. I should only get a caution for that
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Perhaps if you'd read this one (http://road.cc/content/news/81677-no-charges-road-rage-van-driver-who-assau... ) where the rider states
“I don't think the police are to blame but the decisions made by Government departments that govern them."
Although its good that the driver is now facing stiffer time in the court of public opinion.
> Usual wonderful support from the boys in blue
Perhaps if you'd read this one (http://road.cc/content/news/81677-no-charges-road-rage-van-driver-who-assau... ) where the rider states
“I don't think the police are to blame but the decisions made by Government departments that govern them."
Although its good that the driver is now facing stiffer time in the court of public opinion.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
TBH that guy seems to be a bit of a dick, behaving like he does I'm not surprised he's had a skirmish.
There are some videos where he's absolutely in the right, but who the hell in their right mind confronts total strangers over a "Near miss"?
The majority of his videos he's crying over spilled milk.
TBH that guy seems to be a bit of a dick, behaving like he does I'm not surprised he's had a skirmish.
There are some videos where he's absolutely in the right, but who the hell in their right mind confronts total strangers over a "Near miss"?
The majority of his videos he's crying over spilled milk.
In reply to JSA:
What does he do wrong in this one? When the car was pulling in it looked like he was trying to defer to the van driver then pulled away when he was taking too long.
You do get slightly jaded on a bike when you spend half your time looking over your shoulder for the homicidal maniac who wants you dead.
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
>
> TBH that guy seems to be a bit of a dick, behaving like he does I'm not surprised he's had a skirmish.
> There are some videos where he's absolutely in the right, but who the hell in their right mind confronts total strangers over a "Near miss"?
> The majority of his videos he's crying over spilled milk.
>
> TBH that guy seems to be a bit of a dick, behaving like he does I'm not surprised he's had a skirmish.
> There are some videos where he's absolutely in the right, but who the hell in their right mind confronts total strangers over a "Near miss"?
> The majority of his videos he's crying over spilled milk.
What does he do wrong in this one? When the car was pulling in it looked like he was trying to defer to the van driver then pulled away when he was taking too long.
You do get slightly jaded on a bike when you spend half your time looking over your shoulder for the homicidal maniac who wants you dead.
In reply to Trevers:
You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
> (In reply to JSA)
> [...]
>
> What does he do wrong in this one? When the car was pulling in it looked like he was trying to defer to the van driver then pulled away when he was taking too long.
>
> You do get slightly jaded on a bike when you spend half your time looking over your shoulder for the homicidal maniac who wants you dead.
> [...]
>
> What does he do wrong in this one? When the car was pulling in it looked like he was trying to defer to the van driver then pulled away when he was taking too long.
>
> You do get slightly jaded on a bike when you spend half your time looking over your shoulder for the homicidal maniac who wants you dead.
You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
In reply to Trevers:
I'm no saying he did anything wrong on this one(taking the confrontational attitude out of the equation), But with his attitude it really was only a matter of time before he got some aggro.
What happens when he mouths off at a real nutter and gets seriously assaulted?Again, that would probably only be a matter of time.
He does complain a lot about close passes, so why does he leave room for a vehicle to pass if he thinks that there is already a possibility of being knocked off?
This guy strikes me just as bad as the other guy posted on here a while back who was also very confrontational and trying to dictate traffic law to all and sundry.(Sorry, I can neither find or be bothered to trawl through old posts to find the link).
I'm no saying he did anything wrong on this one(taking the confrontational attitude out of the equation), But with his attitude it really was only a matter of time before he got some aggro.
What happens when he mouths off at a real nutter and gets seriously assaulted?Again, that would probably only be a matter of time.
He does complain a lot about close passes, so why does he leave room for a vehicle to pass if he thinks that there is already a possibility of being knocked off?
This guy strikes me just as bad as the other guy posted on here a while back who was also very confrontational and trying to dictate traffic law to all and sundry.(Sorry, I can neither find or be bothered to trawl through old posts to find the link).
In reply to JSA:
Not condoning the dick in the van, and not sure if the angle of the camera lens distorts things, but the cyclist in question seems to spend his entire life carrying out a mixture of very dodgy filtering and then getting irate at other road users. I particularly liked riding down the ice in the middle of the road then wobbling into oncoming traffic as he turns his head to film the car with the uncleared wing mirror.
Not condoning the dick in the van, and not sure if the angle of the camera lens distorts things, but the cyclist in question seems to spend his entire life carrying out a mixture of very dodgy filtering and then getting irate at other road users. I particularly liked riding down the ice in the middle of the road then wobbling into oncoming traffic as he turns his head to film the car with the uncleared wing mirror.
In reply to Ridge:
He has over a hundred videos on his channel, all of them filmed on his headcam in the last 6 months. I would think it says a lot more about him than the drivers he gets shouty at.
He has over a hundred videos on his channel, all of them filmed on his headcam in the last 6 months. I would think it says a lot more about him than the drivers he gets shouty at.
In reply to Alan Taylor: the driver should be charged . but it was a stupid move by the cyclist . the van had stopped to let the car back in to a parking space and he (the cyclist)squeezed through the gap between them.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
That's as maybe. But anyone who uses a van as a weapon and physically assaults another road user should be done for dangerous driving and common assault
>
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
That's as maybe. But anyone who uses a van as a weapon and physically assaults another road user should be done for dangerous driving and common assault
In reply to woolsack:
Yes, also get very annoyed with anyone who would offer any apologies for an attack like this. This cyclist could be the biggest idiot on the road, but short of physically attacking the van driver first, there is no excuse for this. I'm no cycling crusader and my thoughts would be the same if a cyclist had stopped and attacked a van driver.
Yes, also get very annoyed with anyone who would offer any apologies for an attack like this. This cyclist could be the biggest idiot on the road, but short of physically attacking the van driver first, there is no excuse for this. I'm no cycling crusader and my thoughts would be the same if a cyclist had stopped and attacked a van driver.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Still doesn't excuse the assault by an impatient self-important git
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
> [...]
>
> You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
Still doesn't excuse the assault by an impatient self-important git
In reply to Mike Highbury:
He waits. It looks to me like there's a bit of a misunderstanding and he takes the gap in the end. Throughout the rest of the video, he is checking behind him before he pulls into the middle of the road, but when you're stationary in stationary traffic, it's easy to tell what's going on just by listening.
That said I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you, your last sentence gives you away
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
> [...]
>
> You reckon? He goes into the gap and the pulls across in front of the van. Or at least we guess so, because he doesn't so much as glance back to see whether or not the van is moving off. Granted he has peripheral vision, which the camera doesn't capture, but his style suggests forward vision to the exclusion of everything else.
>
> TBH he's just another tosser with a headcam desperate to prove a point.
He waits. It looks to me like there's a bit of a misunderstanding and he takes the gap in the end. Throughout the rest of the video, he is checking behind him before he pulls into the middle of the road, but when you're stationary in stationary traffic, it's easy to tell what's going on just by listening.
That said I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you, your last sentence gives you away
No excuses at all for the assault, but I do sometime wonder whether cyclists with (presumably expensive) cameras strapped to their head actively seek opportunities to justify it.
Not quite the same I know, but it's a bit like the 'just carrying a knife for self defence' argument - sooner or later the perpetrator engineers a confrontation to justify it's use.
Still, the assault was appauling and the lack of prosecution, disgraceful.
Not quite the same I know, but it's a bit like the 'just carrying a knife for self defence' argument - sooner or later the perpetrator engineers a confrontation to justify it's use.
Still, the assault was appauling and the lack of prosecution, disgraceful.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
The video is shocking but having looked at the cyclist's other videos on youtube he looks like a bit of an idiot.
The video is shocking but having looked at the cyclist's other videos on youtube he looks like a bit of an idiot.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Looking at the video the van tries to squeeze past him on a narrow stretch of road. Van then slams the brakes on leaving the cyclist little option to swerve out of the way nearly missing a door being opened in his face.
The van driver then apparently chases the cyclist down and batters him. Regardless the cyclist is being a bit of tit, it does not excuse the drivers behaviour and I'm surprised that folk seem to think its acceptable because he was 'asking for it'. If the van driver can't control his temper then he shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Looking at the video the van tries to squeeze past him on a narrow stretch of road. Van then slams the brakes on leaving the cyclist little option to swerve out of the way nearly missing a door being opened in his face.
The van driver then apparently chases the cyclist down and batters him. Regardless the cyclist is being a bit of tit, it does not excuse the drivers behaviour and I'm surprised that folk seem to think its acceptable because he was 'asking for it'. If the van driver can't control his temper then he shouldn't be behind the wheel.
In reply to stu:
It's sad that things get so confrontational.
Confronted with that initial situation myself, the one that seems to have provoked Mr White Van, I would have paused, sized it up, and got past one way or another. Whether I was in a car or on a bike. The trouble is, when you're on a bike, people seem to find you more provoking. You're certainly more vulnerable.
I can't see why the assailant wasn't charged with assault.
It's sad that things get so confrontational.
Confronted with that initial situation myself, the one that seems to have provoked Mr White Van, I would have paused, sized it up, and got past one way or another. Whether I was in a car or on a bike. The trouble is, when you're on a bike, people seem to find you more provoking. You're certainly more vulnerable.
I can't see why the assailant wasn't charged with assault.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
It's kind of usual that people don't attach cameras to their eyes. You can tell throughout that video that he is actively looking around and doing shoulder checks, the way he turns into that street at the end and double backs shows he's clearly aware there is a psycho in a van following him.
> (In reply to Alan Taylor) If the headcam mirrors the cyclist's vision, he seems to have remarkably little care about other road users.
It's kind of usual that people don't attach cameras to their eyes. You can tell throughout that video that he is actively looking around and doing shoulder checks, the way he turns into that street at the end and double backs shows he's clearly aware there is a psycho in a van following him.
In reply to FrankBooth:
I do see where you're coming from. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to cycle regularly and not have numerous near misses. Overreacting at the time with shouting and gentures when a car passes too close is only natural, putting all those videos on Youtube is slightly pathetic. However the use of the helmet camera has justified itself here- they were not only able to identify the guy, but showed him up to be a nasty little liar, and hopefully the volumes of hate mail he has received will make him keep his head down in future.
> No excuses at all for the assault, but I do sometime wonder whether cyclists with (presumably expensive) cameras strapped to their head actively seek opportunities to justify it.
>
> Not quite the same I know, but it's a bit like the 'just carrying a knife for self defence' argument - sooner or later the perpetrator engineers a confrontation to justify it's use.
>
> Not quite the same I know, but it's a bit like the 'just carrying a knife for self defence' argument - sooner or later the perpetrator engineers a confrontation to justify it's use.
I do see where you're coming from. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to cycle regularly and not have numerous near misses. Overreacting at the time with shouting and gentures when a car passes too close is only natural, putting all those videos on Youtube is slightly pathetic. However the use of the helmet camera has justified itself here- they were not only able to identify the guy, but showed him up to be a nasty little liar, and hopefully the volumes of hate mail he has received will make him keep his head down in future.
In reply to stu:
The other videos on this channel are a different cyclist. He has been involved in a number of 'incidents' (which have involved police involvement) and does appear to be quite confrontational as demonstrated by both his videos and also attitudes displayed towards drivers in other cycling forums.
Although personally I think that while the end result was poor, holding someone up (un-nesessaraly imo), then blasting them with an airsound whilst waiving your arms at them when they do get past would mean that's its not a huge surprise when you get a negative reaction...
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
>
> The video is shocking but having looked at the cyclist's other videos on youtube he looks like a bit of an idiot.
>
> The video is shocking but having looked at the cyclist's other videos on youtube he looks like a bit of an idiot.
The other videos on this channel are a different cyclist. He has been involved in a number of 'incidents' (which have involved police involvement) and does appear to be quite confrontational as demonstrated by both his videos and also attitudes displayed towards drivers in other cycling forums.
Although personally I think that while the end result was poor, holding someone up (un-nesessaraly imo), then blasting them with an airsound whilst waiving your arms at them when they do get past would mean that's its not a huge surprise when you get a negative reaction...
The Brummie accent doesn't quite fit his vigilante aspirations, either
In reply to Tim Chappell:
Because the offender admitted his guilt, had no previous convictions and BOTH the victim and offender agreed to the matter being dealt with by 'local resolution" LR
He may have later tweeted that he "wasn't happy with this outcome" but he agreed to it' at the time,
it's how it works.
If the victim did not agree on LR, it would have probably moved up to a caution for Sec 39 common assault.
It would be rare that a common assault, in these circumstances, would go to court without aggravating factors. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/common_assult/
Even with a LR, a crime is recorded and details of the motorist will be recorded as the offender. if he became involved in another incident and was charged, the court can be made aware of this incident and can take it into consideration when sentencing.
> (In reply to stu)
> I can't see why the assailant wasn't charged with assault.
Because the offender admitted his guilt, had no previous convictions and BOTH the victim and offender agreed to the matter being dealt with by 'local resolution" LR
He may have later tweeted that he "wasn't happy with this outcome" but he agreed to it' at the time,
it's how it works.
If the victim did not agree on LR, it would have probably moved up to a caution for Sec 39 common assault.
It would be rare that a common assault, in these circumstances, would go to court without aggravating factors. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/common_assult/
Even with a LR, a crime is recorded and details of the motorist will be recorded as the offender. if he became involved in another incident and was charged, the court can be made aware of this incident and can take it into consideration when sentencing.
In reply to Paul F:
You seem to know your stuff on this Paul, so can you tell us why following someone (arguably chasing a bike in your car), getting out of the car and running AFTER the cyclist who seems to be trying to run away, aren't aggravating factors?
I'm confused by the law around these points; with pushes and the odd punch it always seems such an incredibly thin line between little happening in response by the law (caution or here, LR), and the person being knocked down and from that sustaining a serious injury (i.e. hitting their head badly) and the book being thrown at the perpetrator. I can't remember exactly the thread but PC offduty was trying to explain a similar point to me not so long ago from the point of view of the decisions that the police have to make in such cases.
> It would be rare that a common assault, in these circumstances, would go to court without aggravating factors. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/common_assult/
You seem to know your stuff on this Paul, so can you tell us why following someone (arguably chasing a bike in your car), getting out of the car and running AFTER the cyclist who seems to be trying to run away, aren't aggravating factors?
I'm confused by the law around these points; with pushes and the odd punch it always seems such an incredibly thin line between little happening in response by the law (caution or here, LR), and the person being knocked down and from that sustaining a serious injury (i.e. hitting their head badly) and the book being thrown at the perpetrator. I can't remember exactly the thread but PC offduty was trying to explain a similar point to me not so long ago from the point of view of the decisions that the police have to make in such cases.
In reply to TobyA:
Assaults are "judged" on the basis of the severity of the injury.
Aggravating factors might affect sentencing rather than the grade of the offence.
As a result if the push had caused the cyclist to fall over hit his head and die then the driver would have been looking at a manslaughter charge. He wouldn't have been getting a caution for that.
I believe there are suggestions/proposals currently that the victims views should have more bearing on a decision to prosecute, but as I often get told on UKC, the victims shouldn't influence the decisions of the judicial system as they are too emotionally involved.
In this case there may have been other driving offences - such as careless/inconsiderate driving but it's difficult to tell from the video what the quality of the driving was like, just as it is difficult to tell the standard of the cyclists riding during the filmed sequence.
Assaults are "judged" on the basis of the severity of the injury.
Aggravating factors might affect sentencing rather than the grade of the offence.
As a result if the push had caused the cyclist to fall over hit his head and die then the driver would have been looking at a manslaughter charge. He wouldn't have been getting a caution for that.
I believe there are suggestions/proposals currently that the victims views should have more bearing on a decision to prosecute, but as I often get told on UKC, the victims shouldn't influence the decisions of the judicial system as they are too emotionally involved.
In this case there may have been other driving offences - such as careless/inconsiderate driving but it's difficult to tell from the video what the quality of the driving was like, just as it is difficult to tell the standard of the cyclists riding during the filmed sequence.
In reply to off-duty:
Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did. That was so dangerous.
E
> (In reply to TobyA)
>
>
> In this case there may have been other driving offences - such as careless/inconsiderate driving but it's difficult to tell from the video what the quality of the driving was like, just as it is difficult to tell the standard of the cyclists riding during the filmed sequence.
Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did. That was so dangerous.
E
In reply to Enty:
It's something of a shame that is didn't end up in a crown court. The jury would have seen this and, one can be fairly certain, his other videos, found the driver not guilty and recommended that the cyclist's assets be seized and distributed to the real victims; those who suffer from his endless harassment.
>
> Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did. That was so dangerous.
>
> E
> Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did. That was so dangerous.
>
> E
It's something of a shame that is didn't end up in a crown court. The jury would have seen this and, one can be fairly certain, his other videos, found the driver not guilty and recommended that the cyclist's assets be seized and distributed to the real victims; those who suffer from his endless harassment.
In reply to TobyA:
I think Local resolution is what West Mids call Restorative Justice, which can work really well in some circumstances.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/restorative_justice/
Restorative Justice puts the wishes of the victim to the forefront when deciding what the outcome should be. It may be anything from a verbal apology to reparation for damages and is agreed between both parties.
If the offender doesn't uphold his part of the agreement, the police can still prosecute the original offence.
I can't understand why the cyclist agreed to the offender to be dealt with by this method, and then afterwards said he wasn't happy.
Even if the motorist was charged to court, I'm not sure that it would have attracted any great sentence (due to early guilty plea) other than the offender being 'bind over' (justices of the Peace Act 1361) and (Section 115 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.(MCA) provides that where a compliant is made the magistrates court can bind over a person by entering into a recognizance, with or with out sureties, to keep the peace or be of good behaviour towards the complainant.)
I've also known the CPS to return prosecution files back to the police,for the offender to be dealt with by caution or restorative justice.
I think Local resolution is what West Mids call Restorative Justice, which can work really well in some circumstances.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/restorative_justice/
Restorative Justice puts the wishes of the victim to the forefront when deciding what the outcome should be. It may be anything from a verbal apology to reparation for damages and is agreed between both parties.
If the offender doesn't uphold his part of the agreement, the police can still prosecute the original offence.
I can't understand why the cyclist agreed to the offender to be dealt with by this method, and then afterwards said he wasn't happy.
Even if the motorist was charged to court, I'm not sure that it would have attracted any great sentence (due to early guilty plea) other than the offender being 'bind over' (justices of the Peace Act 1361) and (Section 115 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.(MCA) provides that where a compliant is made the magistrates court can bind over a person by entering into a recognizance, with or with out sureties, to keep the peace or be of good behaviour towards the complainant.)
I've also known the CPS to return prosecution files back to the police,for the offender to be dealt with by caution or restorative justice.
In reply to Enty:
Seems to me this is two agressive idiots winding each up and not much more. It's not clear what started it all - the van passing a little close? The van stopped well in front of the cyclist who had plenty of time to stop. Instead he tried to overtake with a car coming the other way. The van driver shouldn't have opened his door for the same reason.
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did.
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Never mind the assault. The driver should have been prosecuted for stopping in front of the cyclists and opening his door like he did.
Seems to me this is two agressive idiots winding each up and not much more. It's not clear what started it all - the van passing a little close? The van stopped well in front of the cyclist who had plenty of time to stop. Instead he tried to overtake with a car coming the other way. The van driver shouldn't have opened his door for the same reason.
In reply to MG:
Agreed. The whole incident started with the cyclist nodding his head in disapproval and then using his horn. I can't help thinking that as a cyclist, if you need a horn, you are heading for confrontation. I regularly use my bell to alert suicidal pedestrians that walk into the road with out looking, but never have a need to blast a horn at a car driver. I just let the aggressive drivers get on with it and keep clear. They aren't hard to spot and it just isn't worth getting het up about it.
> Seems to me this is two agressive idiots winding each up and not much more.
Agreed. The whole incident started with the cyclist nodding his head in disapproval and then using his horn. I can't help thinking that as a cyclist, if you need a horn, you are heading for confrontation. I regularly use my bell to alert suicidal pedestrians that walk into the road with out looking, but never have a need to blast a horn at a car driver. I just let the aggressive drivers get on with it and keep clear. They aren't hard to spot and it just isn't worth getting het up about it.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
I'd just like to quickly point out that they went past a police station during this altercation. The assault is about 200 yards away from it.
I'd just like to quickly point out that they went past a police station during this altercation. The assault is about 200 yards away from it.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
I've just watched it again. I saw two dickheads but only one vicious thug.
E
I've just watched it again. I saw two dickheads but only one vicious thug.
E
In reply to Alan Taylor:
His webpage comtact form seems to be up again so I think the public's outrage was short lived :-P
His webpage comtact form seems to be up again so I think the public's outrage was short lived :-P
In reply to Alan Taylor:
This is the guys Youtube channel, the one in the link is someone else's who uploaded/copied it from somewhere.
youtube.com/watch?v=0tePLNVUqV8&
Tbh it only seemed a matter of time before someone punched him!
This is the guys Youtube channel, the one in the link is someone else's who uploaded/copied it from somewhere.
youtube.com/watch?v=0tePLNVUqV8&
Tbh it only seemed a matter of time before someone punched him!
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Having just watched it I think the white van driver's behaviour was awful, but I can't help thinking that if the cyclist hadn't sounded that very loud horn and raised his arm in indignation then there would have been no road rage. Ok, you could say that he had a right to protest at the driving but you can't go round looking for bad driving and complain all the time. He's too excessive, if you raise your arm and sound loud horns everytime you are the victim of bad driving, you might expect the odd thug to become very angry. This is in no way condoning the white van man's behaviour though, I'm just saying this guy is quite provocative in his protests.
Having just watched it I think the white van driver's behaviour was awful, but I can't help thinking that if the cyclist hadn't sounded that very loud horn and raised his arm in indignation then there would have been no road rage. Ok, you could say that he had a right to protest at the driving but you can't go round looking for bad driving and complain all the time. He's too excessive, if you raise your arm and sound loud horns everytime you are the victim of bad driving, you might expect the odd thug to become very angry. This is in no way condoning the white van man's behaviour though, I'm just saying this guy is quite provocative in his protests.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
As has been mentioned; most field of vision is performed by swivelling the eyes in their sockets. Having played with a head camera, I found that it in no way reflected what I was looking at.
You don't drive a white van, by any chance? You seem to have the right attitude for it...
> If the headcam mirrors the cyclist's vision, he seems to have remarkably little care about other road users.
As has been mentioned; most field of vision is performed by swivelling the eyes in their sockets. Having played with a head camera, I found that it in no way reflected what I was looking at.
You don't drive a white van, by any chance? You seem to have the right attitude for it...
In reply to captain paranoia:
I was also wondering this and whether he slaps women who give him a bit of back talk as well
Toby
I was also wondering this and whether he slaps women who give him a bit of back talk as well
Toby
In reply to jamesgreenfield:
I don't know how else you make people aware that their driving is sub-standard; generally, it's not possible to catch up with them and have a nice, pleasant chat about what you think they did wrong.
As for the horn, I thought it was the van driver hooting as he drove past, and the cyclist waving his hand to say 'what?'. That's what I'd do.
> Ok, you could say that he had a right to protest at the driving
I don't know how else you make people aware that their driving is sub-standard; generally, it's not possible to catch up with them and have a nice, pleasant chat about what you think they did wrong.
As for the horn, I thought it was the van driver hooting as he drove past, and the cyclist waving his hand to say 'what?'. That's what I'd do.
In reply to Alan Taylor: As someone said earlier the cyclist may have behaved like a dick, the driver certainly behaved like a thug. As with the Capt I thought the horn came from the van.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Yeah, you're right, it was obviously from the van, woops, lack of sleep I guess.
Yeah, you're right, it was obviously from the van, woops, lack of sleep I guess.
In reply to jamesgreenfield:
Nope it's a bike horn. I believe Timmd from here uses one very similar to that.
Nope it's a bike horn. I believe Timmd from here uses one very similar to that.
In reply to captain paranoia:
You shouldn't need to tell someone their driving is substandard because your driving is probably substandard at times. I know mine is and I naturally think I am an excellent driver!
> I don't know how else you make people aware that their driving is sub-standard; generally, it's not possible to catch up with them and have a nice, pleasant chat about what you think they did wrong.
You shouldn't need to tell someone their driving is substandard because your driving is probably substandard at times. I know mine is and I naturally think I am an excellent driver!
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
isnt that video from Birmingham?
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
>
> The main thing I take from this is that I am glad I don't live in London
>
> The main thing I take from this is that I am glad I don't live in London
isnt that video from Birmingham?
In reply to jamesgreenfield:
If a car had done that to you (overtaking on a narrow road then slamming on the brakes), you'd probably be sounding a horn. Why shouldn't a bike do that same? Though I agree that a lot of the headcam cyclist lot can be very provocative. I think there's a lot to be said for recording rides, but I wouldn't keep a youtube account showing every inconsiderate driver, waste of time and overshadows cases like this one. It allows people on this thread and others to say "it was only a matter of time" when that should be totally irrelevant to the specific case.
If a car had done that to you (overtaking on a narrow road then slamming on the brakes), you'd probably be sounding a horn. Why shouldn't a bike do that same? Though I agree that a lot of the headcam cyclist lot can be very provocative. I think there's a lot to be said for recording rides, but I wouldn't keep a youtube account showing every inconsiderate driver, waste of time and overshadows cases like this one. It allows people on this thread and others to say "it was only a matter of time" when that should be totally irrelevant to the specific case.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I once did catch up to a driver at a red light who had previously pulled out right in front of me and ask her to roll down her window. We did in fact have a polite chat and she apologised and said she would be more careful in future. I don't know if she was sincere but at least it forced her to think about it a bit. If only it was possible all the time I suspect polite chats would actually have a significant difference. Obviously not so much with maniacal nutters who think its ok to batter people who get near their van.
I occasionally respond to horns with a cheery wave which I suppose could be seen as rather provocative though I prefer to think of it as a sociable hoot which would be rude to ignore!
I once did catch up to a driver at a red light who had previously pulled out right in front of me and ask her to roll down her window. We did in fact have a polite chat and she apologised and said she would be more careful in future. I don't know if she was sincere but at least it forced her to think about it a bit. If only it was possible all the time I suspect polite chats would actually have a significant difference. Obviously not so much with maniacal nutters who think its ok to batter people who get near their van.
I occasionally respond to horns with a cheery wave which I suppose could be seen as rather provocative though I prefer to think of it as a sociable hoot which would be rude to ignore!
In reply to captain paranoia:
I think Mike may have mention some time ago that he drives some variant of a Stuttgart Dildo!
> (In reply to Mike Highbury)
>
> You don't drive a white van, by any chance? You seem to have the right attitude for it...
>
> You don't drive a white van, by any chance? You seem to have the right attitude for it...
I think Mike may have mention some time ago that he drives some variant of a Stuttgart Dildo!
reply to Mike Highbury: Are you a complete arsewipe in real life or trolling ? I hope the latter.
In reply to dissonance:
anywhere down South is London to us hicks
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
>
> isnt that video from Birmingham?
> [...]
>
> isnt that video from Birmingham?
anywhere down South is London to us hicks
In reply to Bob_the_Builder:
"I once did catch up to a driver at a red light who had previously pulled out right in front of me and ask her to roll down her window. We did in fact have a polite chat and she apologised and said she would be more careful in future. "
I tried this with a mini-coach driver who squeezed me off the road at a junction. I pulled up next to him and made a hand signal for him to wind down the window and simply said "could you give me more room in future, you pushed me right off the road back there" and all I got was "Oh no I didn't you had loads of room, I was nowhere near you".
This really just goes to show how little some drivers understand about cycling and why I think all drivers should be forced to take a cycling proficiency test out on the open road before they are allowed to drive.
As far as the film in question goes, the cyclist would probably do better trying to avoid confrontation just because you're always going to have one fool who will go mental and properly try and flatten you either with the car or their fists. This doesn't however support the actions of the driver who was obviously either fuming from the relatively minor incident with the car trying to park or extremely quickly wound up by the blokes use of the horn as he jumped out of that car like Linford out of the blocks.
"I once did catch up to a driver at a red light who had previously pulled out right in front of me and ask her to roll down her window. We did in fact have a polite chat and she apologised and said she would be more careful in future. "
I tried this with a mini-coach driver who squeezed me off the road at a junction. I pulled up next to him and made a hand signal for him to wind down the window and simply said "could you give me more room in future, you pushed me right off the road back there" and all I got was "Oh no I didn't you had loads of room, I was nowhere near you".
This really just goes to show how little some drivers understand about cycling and why I think all drivers should be forced to take a cycling proficiency test out on the open road before they are allowed to drive.
As far as the film in question goes, the cyclist would probably do better trying to avoid confrontation just because you're always going to have one fool who will go mental and properly try and flatten you either with the car or their fists. This doesn't however support the actions of the driver who was obviously either fuming from the relatively minor incident with the car trying to park or extremely quickly wound up by the blokes use of the horn as he jumped out of that car like Linford out of the blocks.
In reply to gethin_allen:
Yes, I've not had much luck with the polite approach, and usually get abuse no matter how sweetly I smile.
I did have one truck driver who was very apologetic when I caught up with him after he pulled out from a T-junction without slowing or looking, needing very sharp braking and evasion into the other lane. I wasn't smiley or polite that time...
Ironically, it was a DVLA recovery truck, presumably removing an unlicensed vehicle...
The fact that he was apologetic meant I didn't report him to his employer or the police (latter a pointless exercise, of course). He claimed he hadn't seen me (orange bike, fluorescent yellow jacket, broad daylight). Not slowing at a t-junction wasn't too smart...
> I tried this with a mini-coach driver who squeezed me off the road at a junction.
Yes, I've not had much luck with the polite approach, and usually get abuse no matter how sweetly I smile.
I did have one truck driver who was very apologetic when I caught up with him after he pulled out from a T-junction without slowing or looking, needing very sharp braking and evasion into the other lane. I wasn't smiley or polite that time...
Ironically, it was a DVLA recovery truck, presumably removing an unlicensed vehicle...
The fact that he was apologetic meant I didn't report him to his employer or the police (latter a pointless exercise, of course). He claimed he hadn't seen me (orange bike, fluorescent yellow jacket, broad daylight). Not slowing at a t-junction wasn't too smart...
In reply to gethin_allen:
And presumably all cyclists should be forced to take such a test before they're allowed to go on the open road, as well?
> (In reply to Bob_the_Builder)
> This really just goes to show how little some drivers understand about cycling and why I think all drivers should be forced to take a cycling proficiency test out on the open road before they are allowed to drive.
And presumably all cyclists should be forced to take such a test before they're allowed to go on the open road, as well?
In reply to Rob Parsons: As cyclists have a right to be on the road I don't see why they should
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Car drivers have 'a right to be on the road' too; in fact, they have to pass a test to be granted that right.
If somebody here is suggesting extra 'cycling proficiency training' mandated for car drivers, then it should logically cut both ways, shouldn't it?
Car drivers have 'a right to be on the road' too; in fact, they have to pass a test to be granted that right.
If somebody here is suggesting extra 'cycling proficiency training' mandated for car drivers, then it should logically cut both ways, shouldn't it?
In reply to Rob Parsons: Car drivers don't have a right. They have an entitlement granted by their licence. That can be withdrawn.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
It's the law...?
It reflects the fact that cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians, who are similarly entitled to use the roads without a licence. Whereas an unlicensed driver at the wheel of a car can do a lot of damage. A licence is intended to ensure a minimum level of ability in some field of activity; driving, medicine, law, etc. fields where you are directly responsible for the safety of others.
> So why do cyclists 'have a right'?
It's the law...?
It reflects the fact that cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians, who are similarly entitled to use the roads without a licence. Whereas an unlicensed driver at the wheel of a car can do a lot of damage. A licence is intended to ensure a minimum level of ability in some field of activity; driving, medicine, law, etc. fields where you are directly responsible for the safety of others.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Yes of course.
I don't agree with that contention.
But anyway I think you are missing the point of my post.
'Gethin Allen' is suggesting mandatory 'cycling proficiency training' for car drivers, over and above existing licence conditions. If the idea of that is to reduce the number of accidents, then it seems to me that he should also support mandatory 'car proficiency training' for cyclists who want to ride on the road.
(I personally am not arguing in favour of either by the way; I was just trying to follow his logic.)
> It's the law?
Yes of course.
> It reflects the fact that cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians,
I don't agree with that contention.
But anyway I think you are missing the point of my post.
'Gethin Allen' is suggesting mandatory 'cycling proficiency training' for car drivers, over and above existing licence conditions. If the idea of that is to reduce the number of accidents, then it seems to me that he should also support mandatory 'car proficiency training' for cyclists who want to ride on the road.
(I personally am not arguing in favour of either by the way; I was just trying to follow his logic.)
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Well by the same token cyclists don't have a right, merely an entitlement granted by the owner of the land and/or statute, which can be withdrawn or changed respectively. Debate at that level won't take anyone far.
jcm
Well by the same token cyclists don't have a right, merely an entitlement granted by the owner of the land and/or statute, which can be withdrawn or changed respectively. Debate at that level won't take anyone far.
jcm
In reply to Alan Taylor:
The cyclist is hogging the road or 'taking up a commanding position' or whatever cyclists like to call it. He clearly knew the van was there. There were several spots the cyclist could have pulled in a bit but didn't. Eventually the van saw a spot to overtake. As he comes back in, the cyclist sees his opportunity, accelerates, swerves out a bit and leans on his horn. Job done, another car driver wound up.
The cyclist is hogging the road or 'taking up a commanding position' or whatever cyclists like to call it. He clearly knew the van was there. There were several spots the cyclist could have pulled in a bit but didn't. Eventually the van saw a spot to overtake. As he comes back in, the cyclist sees his opportunity, accelerates, swerves out a bit and leans on his horn. Job done, another car driver wound up.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Then I suggest you go and research the numbers. In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly (and they're pretty rare). Cars and pedestrians is a different story.
I think drivers should be forced to spend time riding a bike on the roads as part of their driver instruction. Whether a cycling proficiency test is needed I'm not sure. Before you start, yes, I have passed my cycling proficiency test, and survived 40 years daily road cycling in rush hour. I think the latter probably demonstrated proficiency as well as anything; I'd be dead if I wasn't proficient at avoiding danger...
> I don't agree with that contention.
Then I suggest you go and research the numbers. In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly (and they're pretty rare). Cars and pedestrians is a different story.
I think drivers should be forced to spend time riding a bike on the roads as part of their driver instruction. Whether a cycling proficiency test is needed I'm not sure. Before you start, yes, I have passed my cycling proficiency test, and survived 40 years daily road cycling in rush hour. I think the latter probably demonstrated proficiency as well as anything; I'd be dead if I wasn't proficient at avoiding danger...
In reply to DancingOnRock:
When? At the point when the traffic was snarled up? That's the point the van driver gets the hump, and then chases the cyclist. Gets the hump because the cyclist went up inside him, and got past.
But there was room for the cyclist to make progress ahead, whereas there wasn't room for the van to make progress. So why not let the cyclist make progress? Why get so upset because the cyclist got past you? That's what this incident was about.
The reason cyclists adopt an 'assertive' position in the road (that's what we, and the DETR 'Cyclecraft Manual' call it), is to stop drivers trying to overtake where it isn't safe for drivers to overtake. And we know better than anybody where that is.
There was no need; there were plenty of opportunities for the van to get past, but the van driver was chasing him; it wasn't a case of the van driver being held up; he was deliberately pursuing the cyclist.
> The cyclist is hogging the road or 'taking up a commanding position' or whatever cyclists like to call it. He clearly knew the van was there.
When? At the point when the traffic was snarled up? That's the point the van driver gets the hump, and then chases the cyclist. Gets the hump because the cyclist went up inside him, and got past.
But there was room for the cyclist to make progress ahead, whereas there wasn't room for the van to make progress. So why not let the cyclist make progress? Why get so upset because the cyclist got past you? That's what this incident was about.
The reason cyclists adopt an 'assertive' position in the road (that's what we, and the DETR 'Cyclecraft Manual' call it), is to stop drivers trying to overtake where it isn't safe for drivers to overtake. And we know better than anybody where that is.
> There were several spots the cyclist could have pulled in a bit but didn't.
There was no need; there were plenty of opportunities for the van to get past, but the van driver was chasing him; it wasn't a case of the van driver being held up; he was deliberately pursuing the cyclist.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Quote them here if you think they help the discussion
That isn't what you said.
You said: 'cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.'
Whether or not they might injure themselves in the process is another matter.
> Then I suggest you go and research the numbers ...
Quote them here if you think they help the discussion
> ... In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly ...
That isn't what you said.
You said: 'cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.'
Whether or not they might injure themselves in the process is another matter.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I'm out of here. Off to try my luck with real petrol heads, not virtual ones.
I'm out of here. Off to try my luck with real petrol heads, not virtual ones.
In reply to captain paranoia:
You can't have it both ways. You wrote: 'In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly.'
> They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.
You can't have it both ways. You wrote: 'In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly.'
In reply to captain paranoia:
That's a cheap shot.
> I'm out of here. Off to try my luck with real petrol heads, not virtual ones.
That's a cheap shot.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I disagree. If the cyclist deliberately rides in a way to stop cars overtaking this will lead to problems.
I think the problems didn't start until later when the cyclist could have moved in after the zebra crossing, but maintained a position in the middle of the lane then swerved out well before the parked cars.
This has happened to me before. Everytime I've made a move to overtake, the cyclist has moved out and sped up.
If he is continually getting into confrontations with drivers he should really look at what the common factor is. And adjust his attitude.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> When? At the point when the traffic was snarled up? That's the point the van driver gets the hump, and then chases the cyclist. Gets the hump because the cyclist went up inside him, and got past.
>
>
> But there was room for the cyclist to make progress ahead, whereas there wasn't room for the van to make progress. So why not let the cyclist make progress? Why get so upset because the cyclist got past you? That's what this incident was about.
>
> The reason cyclists adopt an 'assertive' position in the road (that's what we, and the DETR 'Cyclecraft Manual' call it), is to stop drivers trying to overtake where it isn't safe for drivers to overtake. And we know better than anybody where that is.
>
> [...]
>
> There was no need; there were plenty of opportunities for the van to get past, but the van driver was chasing him; it wasn't a case of the van driver being held up; he was deliberately pursuing the cyclist.
>
> [...]
>
> When? At the point when the traffic was snarled up? That's the point the van driver gets the hump, and then chases the cyclist. Gets the hump because the cyclist went up inside him, and got past.
>
>
> But there was room for the cyclist to make progress ahead, whereas there wasn't room for the van to make progress. So why not let the cyclist make progress? Why get so upset because the cyclist got past you? That's what this incident was about.
>
> The reason cyclists adopt an 'assertive' position in the road (that's what we, and the DETR 'Cyclecraft Manual' call it), is to stop drivers trying to overtake where it isn't safe for drivers to overtake. And we know better than anybody where that is.
>
> [...]
>
> There was no need; there were plenty of opportunities for the van to get past, but the van driver was chasing him; it wasn't a case of the van driver being held up; he was deliberately pursuing the cyclist.
I disagree. If the cyclist deliberately rides in a way to stop cars overtaking this will lead to problems.
I think the problems didn't start until later when the cyclist could have moved in after the zebra crossing, but maintained a position in the middle of the lane then swerved out well before the parked cars.
This has happened to me before. Everytime I've made a move to overtake, the cyclist has moved out and sped up.
If he is continually getting into confrontations with drivers he should really look at what the common factor is. And adjust his attitude.
In reply to Alan Taylor: yes I ride a bike, a motorbike and drive a car and have driven lorries too.
The guy on the bike is a bit of a prick, I back this up by noting the comment at 0.22 when the car is reversing into a space by stating "what arrrrrrrreee ewes dooooing ....... Ttttccchhh".
He could of just waited for the car to reverse into the space it wanted to then continue as he was.
He demonstrates contempt for other road users right there, creating the them and us, that is so often seen from both sides in this ongoing argument.
As others have said the situation could of been avoided.
Yes the guy driving the van is also a dick and is completely unjustified in what he does.
Is it the right end result. Probably as the cyclist agreed to it and the man in the van should take heed of the experience to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The guy on the bike is a bit of a prick, I back this up by noting the comment at 0.22 when the car is reversing into a space by stating "what arrrrrrrreee ewes dooooing ....... Ttttccchhh".
He could of just waited for the car to reverse into the space it wanted to then continue as he was.
He demonstrates contempt for other road users right there, creating the them and us, that is so often seen from both sides in this ongoing argument.
As others have said the situation could of been avoided.
Yes the guy driving the van is also a dick and is completely unjustified in what he does.
Is it the right end result. Probably as the cyclist agreed to it and the man in the van should take heed of the experience to ensure it doesn't happen again.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'd be very happy to have more cyclists given training as to how to cycle safely around other road users; simple things like where not to be, where you can and can't be seen. The issue is that you wouldn't easily be able to apply this. Starting off by educating drivers would cover many cyclists as surprisingly many are also drivers.
I'd be very happy to have more cyclists given training as to how to cycle safely around other road users; simple things like where not to be, where you can and can't be seen. The issue is that you wouldn't easily be able to apply this. Starting off by educating drivers would cover many cyclists as surprisingly many are also drivers.
In reply to gethin_allen: I live in the most bike friendly city..
Great cycle ways.. but the respect goes both ways.. the germans love rules and nobody ever jumps a light.. and cyclist stay in cycle lanes..
But the cycle lanes here work.. in the UK they are token lanes.. only on sections of wide road then leave a cyclist to fend for themselevs at any junction.. where as here the bikes traffic lights change before the cars..
Great cycle ways.. but the respect goes both ways.. the germans love rules and nobody ever jumps a light.. and cyclist stay in cycle lanes..
But the cycle lanes here work.. in the UK they are token lanes.. only on sections of wide road then leave a cyclist to fend for themselevs at any junction.. where as here the bikes traffic lights change before the cars..
In reply to Rob Parsons:
By the phrase "they might injure themselves in the process" you seem to be implying that cyclist-pedestrian collisions are always the fault of the cyclist. I'm sure you realise that that is not the case. For example, pedestrians do sometimes step in to the road in front of bikes without looking, just as they sometimes do in front of motor vehicles.
>> They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.
How is that having it both ways? Unlikely to cause serious injury, and just as likely to be injured yourself are entirely compatible with each other. I'm not saying that either assertion is correct (I have no data) but in no way are they incompatible.
> You said: 'cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.'
>
> Whether or not they might injure themselves in the process is another matter.
>
> Whether or not they might injure themselves in the process is another matter.
By the phrase "they might injure themselves in the process" you seem to be implying that cyclist-pedestrian collisions are always the fault of the cyclist. I'm sure you realise that that is not the case. For example, pedestrians do sometimes step in to the road in front of bikes without looking, just as they sometimes do in front of motor vehicles.
>> They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians.
> You can't have it both ways. You wrote: 'In collisions between cyclists and pedestrians, injuries and fatalities are split pretty evenly.'
How is that having it both ways? Unlikely to cause serious injury, and just as likely to be injured yourself are entirely compatible with each other. I'm not saying that either assertion is correct (I have no data) but in no way are they incompatible.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
There, fixed that for you
ALC
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
>
> The cyclist is hogging the road or 'taking up the primary position' as the government calls it.
>
> The cyclist is hogging the road or 'taking up the primary position' as the government calls it.
There, fixed that for you
ALC
In reply to Alan Taylor: Shocked by that - potentially lethal aggression results in slap on the wrist.
My 2p, and you can have change is that the cyclist did nothing wrong. He came to a complete stop to wait for the car to park before proceeding. If he had let the van through then he'd only have ended up 20 feet up the road behind the traffic ahead.
BW
My 2p, and you can have change is that the cyclist did nothing wrong. He came to a complete stop to wait for the car to park before proceeding. If he had let the van through then he'd only have ended up 20 feet up the road behind the traffic ahead.
BW
In reply to Martin W:
No, I didn't intend to imply that. Let me rephrase: 'they might also get injured in the process.'
'Captain Paranoia' wrote: 'It reflects the fact that cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians'. I disagreed with that contention, and the discussion flowed from there.
> By the phrase "they might injure themselves in the process" you seem to be implying that cyclist-pedestrian collisions are always the fault of the cyclist.
No, I didn't intend to imply that. Let me rephrase: 'they might also get injured in the process.'
> How is that having it both ways?
'Captain Paranoia' wrote: 'It reflects the fact that cyclists are unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians'. I disagreed with that contention, and the discussion flowed from there.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Thank you. He still failed to allow the van to pass. As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> There, fixed that for you
>
> ALC
> [...]
>
> There, fixed that for you
>
> ALC
Thank you. He still failed to allow the van to pass. As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Another fix
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>
> Thank you. He still failed to allow the van to pass. As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when its safe for the car driver to overtake. Not surprising..
> [...]
>
> Thank you. He still failed to allow the van to pass. As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when its safe for the car driver to overtake. Not surprising..
Another fix
In reply to 999thAndy:
Do you mean it's not surprising that a cyclist thinks he knows best?
Next we'll be having pedestrians walking out in front of cars because they have judged that the driver can stop in time. It is frightening to me.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> Another fix
> [...]
>
> Another fix
Do you mean it's not surprising that a cyclist thinks he knows best?
Next we'll be having pedestrians walking out in front of cars because they have judged that the driver can stop in time. It is frightening to me.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Don't go to Canada then - in city limits cars must give way to pedestrians.
My first thought was "don't get used to this as it will be really dangerous back in the UK"
ALC
Don't go to Canada then - in city limits cars must give way to pedestrians.
My first thought was "don't get used to this as it will be really dangerous back in the UK"
ALC
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Why can't most motorists understand the primary position concept?
If i take the PP when I want room to be safe the worst case outcome is that you're a minte late for you meeting.
If I ride in the gutter when there isn't enough room for car + bike there's quite a few possible horrible outcomes.
Anyway there's no real answer. I'll continue taking the PP when I feel it will make me safe on the understanding that I might upset some UKC'ers and once in a while I'll encounter a thick chubby lttle shit like the WVM in the vid. I guess also it helps to be ab le to handle little runts like that too.
E
Why can't most motorists understand the primary position concept?
If i take the PP when I want room to be safe the worst case outcome is that you're a minte late for you meeting.
If I ride in the gutter when there isn't enough room for car + bike there's quite a few possible horrible outcomes.
Anyway there's no real answer. I'll continue taking the PP when I feel it will make me safe on the understanding that I might upset some UKC'ers and once in a while I'll encounter a thick chubby lttle shit like the WVM in the vid. I guess also it helps to be ab le to handle little runts like that too.
E
In reply to Enty:
I equate good riding with the Collision Regulations - always make a clear and obvious change of course and your intentions clear.
Riding primary and looking over your shoulder prior to a turn does all this. It helps drivers as they can read your intentions.
why can't people grasp this.
As for the waddling little no neck chubster - I bet that's the quickest he's run since he was on Jim'll Fix It.
I equate good riding with the Collision Regulations - always make a clear and obvious change of course and your intentions clear.
Riding primary and looking over your shoulder prior to a turn does all this. It helps drivers as they can read your intentions.
why can't people grasp this.
As for the waddling little no neck chubster - I bet that's the quickest he's run since he was on Jim'll Fix It.
In reply to DancingOnRock: the cyclist can see hazards the driver can't like a pothole in the gutter (for instance). The driver won't have the same perception of risk and could end up forcing the cyclist into the hazard, like the pothole. It's not case of knowing better, it's a case of better information being available to the cyclist.
In reply to John Rushby:
Exactly.
My over riding feeling while watching that video was that the cyclist wasn't doing any of that. He puts his head down on the approach to the zebra crossing and accellerates. I don't know but I have a feeling he did this on purpose knowing full well the van driver was behind him.
It goes back to if you go out looking for a fight, you'll find one.
It's not a case of making anyone late, it a case of the van driver having another hazard to negotiate as he has no idea what the cyclist is about to do. He's already come up the inside of the traffic.
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> I equate good riding with the Collision Regulations - always make a clear and obvious change of course and your intentions clear.
>
> Riding primary and looking over your shoulder prior to a turn does all this. It helps drivers as they can read your intentions.
>
> why can't people grasp this.
>
>
> I equate good riding with the Collision Regulations - always make a clear and obvious change of course and your intentions clear.
>
> Riding primary and looking over your shoulder prior to a turn does all this. It helps drivers as they can read your intentions.
>
> why can't people grasp this.
>
Exactly.
My over riding feeling while watching that video was that the cyclist wasn't doing any of that. He puts his head down on the approach to the zebra crossing and accellerates. I don't know but I have a feeling he did this on purpose knowing full well the van driver was behind him.
It goes back to if you go out looking for a fight, you'll find one.
It's not a case of making anyone late, it a case of the van driver having another hazard to negotiate as he has no idea what the cyclist is about to do. He's already come up the inside of the traffic.
In reply to 999thAndy:
But the cyclist doesn't have ALL the information available to him, he only has a very one sided view. Lots of those 'could' happen. There is no problem in taking the PP ever. However, he is taking the PP position with the expess intention to wind someone up and cause a reaction. The cyclist pretty much damns himslf by having a YouTube collection of similar incidents.
You would have thought he would have learned by now.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock) the cyclist can see hazards the driver can't like a pothole in the gutter (for instance). The driver won't have the same perception of risk and could end up forcing the cyclist into the hazard, like the pothole. It's not case of knowing better, it's a case of better information being available to the cyclist.
But the cyclist doesn't have ALL the information available to him, he only has a very one sided view. Lots of those 'could' happen. There is no problem in taking the PP ever. However, he is taking the PP position with the expess intention to wind someone up and cause a reaction. The cyclist pretty much damns himslf by having a YouTube collection of similar incidents.
You would have thought he would have learned by now.
In reply to DancingOnRock/Parsons:
And you have to realise that a cycling training programme would be teaching cyclists how to ride defensively (just as many advanced motoring courses do for drivers) and there would be more people taking this primary position on the road.
Taking command of the road is done when there's a danger apparent, and that taking primary position will reduce the number of options to road users behind in order to make the situation safer. I do it all the time in the car. I do it all the time on my bike.
Yes, this is making a decision for other drivers.
No, it isn't dangerous, it shouldn't be annoying and it definitely isn't an excuse for getting out of your vehicle to deck the cyclist.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> Why can't most motorists understand the primary position concept?
>
> If i take the PP when I want room to be safe the worst case outcome is that you're a minte late for you meeting.
> If I ride in the gutter when there isn't enough room for car + bike there's quite a few possible horrible outcomes.
>
> Why can't most motorists understand the primary position concept?
>
> If i take the PP when I want room to be safe the worst case outcome is that you're a minte late for you meeting.
> If I ride in the gutter when there isn't enough room for car + bike there's quite a few possible horrible outcomes.
And you have to realise that a cycling training programme would be teaching cyclists how to ride defensively (just as many advanced motoring courses do for drivers) and there would be more people taking this primary position on the road.
Taking command of the road is done when there's a danger apparent, and that taking primary position will reduce the number of options to road users behind in order to make the situation safer. I do it all the time in the car. I do it all the time on my bike.
Yes, this is making a decision for other drivers.
No, it isn't dangerous, it shouldn't be annoying and it definitely isn't an excuse for getting out of your vehicle to deck the cyclist.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I think the original turn of phrase is a little unfortunate and not likely to aid harmonious cyclist-motorist relations, but it is true that only the cyclist will know if they are comfortable or not with the risks of being overtaken at any given point. Being not happy with it may be for all the reasons given above - pot-holes, parked cars in the 'cycle lane', a narrow road (as the one in the vid appears to be at the point in question).
Given the lop-sided risks that Enty outlines, cyclists should be afforded the benefit of any doubt in this regard.
This as opposed to knowing the point at which the car driver should overtake, which would need to take into account things they can't possibly know such as the driver's comfort with such a manoeuvre for reasons of experience, car performance etc etc
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
> [...]
>As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening.> [...]
I think the original turn of phrase is a little unfortunate and not likely to aid harmonious cyclist-motorist relations, but it is true that only the cyclist will know if they are comfortable or not with the risks of being overtaken at any given point. Being not happy with it may be for all the reasons given above - pot-holes, parked cars in the 'cycle lane', a narrow road (as the one in the vid appears to be at the point in question).
Given the lop-sided risks that Enty outlines, cyclists should be afforded the benefit of any doubt in this regard.
This as opposed to knowing the point at which the car driver should overtake, which would need to take into account things they can't possibly know such as the driver's comfort with such a manoeuvre for reasons of experience, car performance etc etc
In reply to Hephaestus:
I don't think riding defensively equates with being in the middle of the road more. Sometimes, yes, and certainly in narrow stretches etc. But it would also implies being aware of and responsive to other road users' needs and therefore giving space to overtake when safe. Blokey in the video doesn't seem to grasp this latter part, or that repeatedly using a horn is anything but defensive. His youtube channel has dozens of agressive interactions in six months - which hardly suggests a defensive, attitude to cycling! None of which justifies Mr Pet Shop's behaviour.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock/Parsons)
> [...]
>
> And you have to realise that a cycling training programme would be teaching cyclists how to ride defensively (just as many advanced motoring courses do for drivers) and there would be more people taking this primary position on the road.
>
> [...]
>
> And you have to realise that a cycling training programme would be teaching cyclists how to ride defensively (just as many advanced motoring courses do for drivers) and there would be more people taking this primary position on the road.
>
I don't think riding defensively equates with being in the middle of the road more. Sometimes, yes, and certainly in narrow stretches etc. But it would also implies being aware of and responsive to other road users' needs and therefore giving space to overtake when safe. Blokey in the video doesn't seem to grasp this latter part, or that repeatedly using a horn is anything but defensive. His youtube channel has dozens of agressive interactions in six months - which hardly suggests a defensive, attitude to cycling! None of which justifies Mr Pet Shop's behaviour.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I never said the cyclist has *all* the info, just that his info is better.
For the avoidance of doubt the cyclist in the vid is a bit of tool but I don't think he deserves assaulting.
I never said the cyclist has *all* the info, just that his info is better.
For the avoidance of doubt the cyclist in the vid is a bit of tool but I don't think he deserves assaulting.
In reply to MG:
I think he's well within his rights to use the middle of the road, there. Traffic coming both ways, cars parked on the side of the road: plenty of risks to mitigate and very little benefit to the driver in overtaking.
I think he's well within his rights to use the middle of the road, there. Traffic coming both ways, cars parked on the side of the road: plenty of risks to mitigate and very little benefit to the driver in overtaking.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Silly analogy. Preventing a driver from doing something potentially dangerous is very different from forcing them to do something potentially dangerous.
I actually think it is perfectly reasonable for cyclists to have some say in when it is safe for a driver to overtake, though, of course, it is the driver's decision whether to actually do so (and I am not a cyclist). Of course, cyclists should also pull over and let a driver past if a safe opportunity to overtake doea not arise within a reasonable time.
>
> Next we'll be having pedestrians walking out in front of cars because they have judged that the driver can stop in time.
> Next we'll be having pedestrians walking out in front of cars because they have judged that the driver can stop in time.
Silly analogy. Preventing a driver from doing something potentially dangerous is very different from forcing them to do something potentially dangerous.
I actually think it is perfectly reasonable for cyclists to have some say in when it is safe for a driver to overtake, though, of course, it is the driver's decision whether to actually do so (and I am not a cyclist). Of course, cyclists should also pull over and let a driver past if a safe opportunity to overtake doea not arise within a reasonable time.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Now that I'm looking at this on a proper computer (rather than on my phone) and having watched a few of this chaps other vids, he really needs to get a grip. He's yelling at everyone, waving his hands, calling people wankers and tooting his horn, it's just crazy.
Half the time he's having a go at people for getting close to oncoming traffic because they are giving him ample room while they pass him. There is the odd close pass but he seems to be happy to get into agro because he can hide behind the film he has of it.
Although, this doesn't excuse the van driver for getting physical in the original vid.
Now that I'm looking at this on a proper computer (rather than on my phone) and having watched a few of this chaps other vids, he really needs to get a grip. He's yelling at everyone, waving his hands, calling people wankers and tooting his horn, it's just crazy.
Half the time he's having a go at people for getting close to oncoming traffic because they are giving him ample room while they pass him. There is the odd close pass but he seems to be happy to get into agro because he can hide behind the film he has of it.
Although, this doesn't excuse the van driver for getting physical in the original vid.
In reply to 999thAndy:
No, I didn't say you did. I just think that there are lots of situations where the cyclist is being just as selfish as the driver. In the vid, he accelerates when (in my opinion) he knows that the van driver wants to overtake. If I was driving a car and someone was tailgating me I slow down so that they can overtake. I don't accelerate and move out into the middle. The was plenty of safe room after the zebra crossing if he has slowed a bit. He didn't even check behind before moving out before the next row of parked cars. From that I sums he knew full well the van driver was behind him.
It's very difficult to generalise for all situations when a cyclist should and souldn't take up the PP and when they should slow to allow someone to overtake. All I can say is in the vid, I think he was looking for trouble and found it.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> I never said the cyclist has *all* the info, just that his info is better.
> For the avoidance of doubt the cyclist in the vid is a bit of tool but I don't think he deserves assaulting.
> I never said the cyclist has *all* the info, just that his info is better.
> For the avoidance of doubt the cyclist in the vid is a bit of tool but I don't think he deserves assaulting.
No, I didn't say you did. I just think that there are lots of situations where the cyclist is being just as selfish as the driver. In the vid, he accelerates when (in my opinion) he knows that the van driver wants to overtake. If I was driving a car and someone was tailgating me I slow down so that they can overtake. I don't accelerate and move out into the middle. The was plenty of safe room after the zebra crossing if he has slowed a bit. He didn't even check behind before moving out before the next row of parked cars. From that I sums he knew full well the van driver was behind him.
It's very difficult to generalise for all situations when a cyclist should and souldn't take up the PP and when they should slow to allow someone to overtake. All I can say is in the vid, I think he was looking for trouble and found it.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
if you think hard about it I am sure you might spot a subtle difference between the two scenarios.
On the grounds that a)most people overestimate their driving skills and b)i dont particularly like needles or hospital food I will take the primary position as needed to stop some muppet trying to force past.
> Next we'll be having pedestrians walking out in front of cars because they have judged that the driver can stop in time. It is frightening to me.
if you think hard about it I am sure you might spot a subtle difference between the two scenarios.
On the grounds that a)most people overestimate their driving skills and b)i dont particularly like needles or hospital food I will take the primary position as needed to stop some muppet trying to force past.
In reply to Alan Taylor: I have LONG been a believer of, "If the Law will not take steps to sort things out I WILL do it myself"
And I do
Now 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I don't care.
If there is no justice I'll settle for revenge
And I do
Now 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I don't care.
If there is no justice I'll settle for revenge
In reply to DancingOnRock:
What's frightening about that? It is the cylist who will come off worst when a driver attempts to pass where it isn't safe. We know how close cars come to us when passing, and we know how they often cut in and brake sharply immediately after overtaking. We know that these are unsafe manoeuvres.
The really frightening thing is that some drivers seem to think that it's safe to pass when it certainly isn't; when passing 'traffic calming islands' where the roadway is less than 2.4m wide; at the approach to any junction or roundabout (especially mini roundabouts); where there are cars parked at the side of narrow roads; where there is oncoming traffic; when the cyclist is stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross; when there is no space in front of the cyclist. All of these situations result in the car encroaching into the safe gap around a cyclist, often requiring evasive action to avoid getting hit.
You may be surprised to learn that good cyclists have very good road sense; that's how they're still alive. We can see hazards ahead of us, and we can see where it will be safe for a car to pass us, and where it won't be safe. By adopting the primary position when it isn't safe, and dropping back to the secondary position when it is safe, we try to give clues to drivers to help them decide when to pass. We're not doing it to piss drivers off; we're doing it to try to stay alive.
The other thing about cyclists is that we're generally good at looking at the road ahead, and adjusting our speed to accommodate the gap to traffic; if we can see that there's an obstruction ahead, we'll slow down a little to allow time for the obstruction to clear. The last thing we want to do is come to a dead stop. The same technique is taught for Advanced Motorists and Police drivers. Sadly, many drivers seem to have trouble with this concept, and will advance into any gap, however small, before hitting the brakes. It's amazing how many times I'm coasting to an obstruction, only to have an impatient driver overtake into the gap, and then slam on the brakes (forcing me to brake too). What is the point of that; you're not going anywhere, and you're just wasting fuel and brake pads? Why not adopt a smooth driving style as used by Advanced motorists and Police drivers?
BTW, you do understand that cyclists can be car drivers too? So they also know about how to drive a car, and how to judge distances involving cars?
> As another poster pointed out, apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening.
What's frightening about that? It is the cylist who will come off worst when a driver attempts to pass where it isn't safe. We know how close cars come to us when passing, and we know how they often cut in and brake sharply immediately after overtaking. We know that these are unsafe manoeuvres.
The really frightening thing is that some drivers seem to think that it's safe to pass when it certainly isn't; when passing 'traffic calming islands' where the roadway is less than 2.4m wide; at the approach to any junction or roundabout (especially mini roundabouts); where there are cars parked at the side of narrow roads; where there is oncoming traffic; when the cyclist is stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross; when there is no space in front of the cyclist. All of these situations result in the car encroaching into the safe gap around a cyclist, often requiring evasive action to avoid getting hit.
You may be surprised to learn that good cyclists have very good road sense; that's how they're still alive. We can see hazards ahead of us, and we can see where it will be safe for a car to pass us, and where it won't be safe. By adopting the primary position when it isn't safe, and dropping back to the secondary position when it is safe, we try to give clues to drivers to help them decide when to pass. We're not doing it to piss drivers off; we're doing it to try to stay alive.
The other thing about cyclists is that we're generally good at looking at the road ahead, and adjusting our speed to accommodate the gap to traffic; if we can see that there's an obstruction ahead, we'll slow down a little to allow time for the obstruction to clear. The last thing we want to do is come to a dead stop. The same technique is taught for Advanced Motorists and Police drivers. Sadly, many drivers seem to have trouble with this concept, and will advance into any gap, however small, before hitting the brakes. It's amazing how many times I'm coasting to an obstruction, only to have an impatient driver overtake into the gap, and then slam on the brakes (forcing me to brake too). What is the point of that; you're not going anywhere, and you're just wasting fuel and brake pads? Why not adopt a smooth driving style as used by Advanced motorists and Police drivers?
BTW, you do understand that cyclists can be car drivers too? So they also know about how to drive a car, and how to judge distances involving cars?
In reply to dissonance:
From BikeRadar: "The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process."
You're confusing what I am saying. "Stop some muppet from forcing past" is completely different to allowing cars to pass safely.
In the same way, stepping off the curb and forcing cars to stop is different to crossing when there is a safe distance between you and the car. You will see the former in crowded town streets where people cross the road and seem to expect cars to be able to stop, regardless of car age, size, driver concentration, load and a whole host of other factors.
I think, watching that video, it is not representative of how most cyclists ride and the guy is doing far more harm than good.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> if you think hard about it I am sure you might spot a subtle difference between the two scenarios.
>
> On the grounds that a)most people overestimate their driving skills and b)i dont particularly like needles or hospital food I will take the primary position as needed to stop some muppet trying to force past.
>
> [...]
>
> if you think hard about it I am sure you might spot a subtle difference between the two scenarios.
>
> On the grounds that a)most people overestimate their driving skills and b)i dont particularly like needles or hospital food I will take the primary position as needed to stop some muppet trying to force past.
From BikeRadar: "The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process."
You're confusing what I am saying. "Stop some muppet from forcing past" is completely different to allowing cars to pass safely.
In the same way, stepping off the curb and forcing cars to stop is different to crossing when there is a safe distance between you and the car. You will see the former in crowded town streets where people cross the road and seem to expect cars to be able to stop, regardless of car age, size, driver concentration, load and a whole host of other factors.
I think, watching that video, it is not representative of how most cyclists ride and the guy is doing far more harm than good.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Post of the millenium right there, congratulations!
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> What's frightening about that? It is the cylist who will come off worst when a driver attempts to pass where it isn't safe. We know how close cars come to us when passing, and we know how they often cut in and brake sharply immediately after overtaking. We know that these are unsafe manoeuvres.
>
> The really frightening thing is that some drivers seem to think that it's safe to pass when it certainly isn't; when passing 'traffic calming islands' where the roadway is less than 2.4m wide; at the approach to any junction or roundabout (especially mini roundabouts); where there are cars parked at the side of narrow roads; where there is oncoming traffic; when the cyclist is stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross; when there is no space in front of the cyclist. All of these situations result in the car encroaching into the safe gap around a cyclist, often requiring evasive action to avoid getting hit.
>
> You may be surprised to learn that good cyclists have very good road sense; that's how they're still alive. We can see hazards ahead of us, and we can see where it will be safe for a car to pass us, and where it won't be safe. By adopting the primary position when it isn't safe, and dropping back to the secondary position when it is safe, we try to give clues to drivers to help them decide when to pass. We're not doing it to piss drivers off; we're doing it to try to stay alive.
>
> The other thing about cyclists is that we're generally good at looking at the road ahead, and adjusting our speed to accommodate the gap to traffic; if we can see that there's an obstruction ahead, we'll slow down a little to allow time for the obstruction to clear. The last thing we want to do is come to a dead stop. The same technique is taught for Advanced Motorists and Police drivers. Sadly, many drivers seem to have trouble with this concept, and will advance into any gap, however small, before hitting the brakes. It's amazing how many times I'm coasting to an obstruction, only to have an impatient driver overtake into the gap, and then slam on the brakes (forcing me to brake too). What is the point of that; you're not going anywhere, and you're just wasting fuel and brake pads? Why not adopt a smooth driving style as used by Advanced motorists and Police drivers?
>
> BTW, you do understand that cyclists can be car drivers too? So they also know about how to drive a car, and how to judge distances involving cars?
>
> [...]
>
> What's frightening about that? It is the cylist who will come off worst when a driver attempts to pass where it isn't safe. We know how close cars come to us when passing, and we know how they often cut in and brake sharply immediately after overtaking. We know that these are unsafe manoeuvres.
>
> The really frightening thing is that some drivers seem to think that it's safe to pass when it certainly isn't; when passing 'traffic calming islands' where the roadway is less than 2.4m wide; at the approach to any junction or roundabout (especially mini roundabouts); where there are cars parked at the side of narrow roads; where there is oncoming traffic; when the cyclist is stopped at a zebra crossing to allow pedestrians to cross; when there is no space in front of the cyclist. All of these situations result in the car encroaching into the safe gap around a cyclist, often requiring evasive action to avoid getting hit.
>
> You may be surprised to learn that good cyclists have very good road sense; that's how they're still alive. We can see hazards ahead of us, and we can see where it will be safe for a car to pass us, and where it won't be safe. By adopting the primary position when it isn't safe, and dropping back to the secondary position when it is safe, we try to give clues to drivers to help them decide when to pass. We're not doing it to piss drivers off; we're doing it to try to stay alive.
>
> The other thing about cyclists is that we're generally good at looking at the road ahead, and adjusting our speed to accommodate the gap to traffic; if we can see that there's an obstruction ahead, we'll slow down a little to allow time for the obstruction to clear. The last thing we want to do is come to a dead stop. The same technique is taught for Advanced Motorists and Police drivers. Sadly, many drivers seem to have trouble with this concept, and will advance into any gap, however small, before hitting the brakes. It's amazing how many times I'm coasting to an obstruction, only to have an impatient driver overtake into the gap, and then slam on the brakes (forcing me to brake too). What is the point of that; you're not going anywhere, and you're just wasting fuel and brake pads? Why not adopt a smooth driving style as used by Advanced motorists and Police drivers?
>
> BTW, you do understand that cyclists can be car drivers too? So they also know about how to drive a car, and how to judge distances involving cars?
Post of the millenium right there, congratulations!
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Fortunately though, being chased by a homicidal maniac is not representative of the majority of journies on a bicycle.
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> I think, watching that video, it is not representative of how most cyclists ride and the guy is doing far more harm than good.
> [...]
>
> I think, watching that video, it is not representative of how most cyclists ride and the guy is doing far more harm than good.
Fortunately though, being chased by a homicidal maniac is not representative of the majority of journies on a bicycle.
In reply to captain paranoia:
So how damage would a 75kg cyclist + 10kg of cycle do when the cyclist is doing 30-40mph chasing a downhill strava segment with their head down looking at their Garmin to see if they are going fast enough actually do if they hit someone? Check strava to see some of the speeds cyclists can do in urban areas. Like you say it's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
> (In reply to Rob Parsons)
>
> They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
>
> They are still unlikely to cause serious injury to pedestrians. It's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
So how damage would a 75kg cyclist + 10kg of cycle do when the cyclist is doing 30-40mph chasing a downhill strava segment with their head down looking at their Garmin to see if they are going fast enough actually do if they hit someone? Check strava to see some of the speeds cyclists can do in urban areas. Like you say it's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
In reply to Trevers:
It was an excellent post wasn't it? - why oh why can't motorists get this?
E
> (In reply to captain paranoia)
> [...]
>
> Post of the millenium right there, congratulations!
> [...]
>
> Post of the millenium right there, congratulations!
It was an excellent post wasn't it? - why oh why can't motorists get this?
E
In reply to PanzerHanzler:
Probably quite a lot of damage - thankfully it's very very rare for a cyclist to ride at 40 mph in an urban area with their head down as you put it.
E
> (In reply to captain paranoia)
> [...]
>
> So how damage would a 75kg cyclist + 10kg of cycle do when the cyclist is doing 30-40mph chasing a downhill strava segment with their head down looking at their Garmin to see if they are going fast enough actually do if they hit someone? Check strava to see some of the speeds cyclists can do in urban areas. Like you say it's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
> [...]
>
> So how damage would a 75kg cyclist + 10kg of cycle do when the cyclist is doing 30-40mph chasing a downhill strava segment with their head down looking at their Garmin to see if they are going fast enough actually do if they hit someone? Check strava to see some of the speeds cyclists can do in urban areas. Like you say it's a simple matter of kinetic energy.
Probably quite a lot of damage - thankfully it's very very rare for a cyclist to ride at 40 mph in an urban area with their head down as you put it.
E
In reply to captain paranoia:
By extension car drivers can be cyclists. And what is frightening is that they continue all those habits that you describe into their cycling. They thing they have a god given right to take up the PP at all times and to be overtaken is a front to their suberb advanced cycling skills.
None of what you have written surprises me at all. It happens to me whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
None of what you have written explains why the cyclist in the video rides the way he does.
I'll say again, there are responsible cyclists and responsible car drivers. The two idiots in the video are neither.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> What's frightening about that?
>
> [...]
>
> What's frightening about that?
> BTW, you do understand that cyclists can be car drivers too? So they also know about how to drive a car, and how to judge distances involving cars?
By extension car drivers can be cyclists. And what is frightening is that they continue all those habits that you describe into their cycling. They thing they have a god given right to take up the PP at all times and to be overtaken is a front to their suberb advanced cycling skills.
None of what you have written surprises me at all. It happens to me whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
None of what you have written explains why the cyclist in the video rides the way he does.
I'll say again, there are responsible cyclists and responsible car drivers. The two idiots in the video are neither.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Well done you can copy and paste. Although rather entertainingly you managed to chose one which disagrees with your position, namely:
"apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
now how do you think we prevent a muppet forcing past. Hint its not by riding with a couple of cm to spare from a parked car door.
> From BikeRadar: "The primary position is generally the safest for the cyclist, the secondary being an option available to you that helps traffic behind see ahead and overtake you. But you should only adopt the secondary position if you don't put your own safety at risk in the process."
Well done you can copy and paste. Although rather entertainingly you managed to chose one which disagrees with your position, namely:
"apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
> You're confusing what I am saying. "Stop some muppet from forcing past" is completely different to allowing cars to pass safely.
now how do you think we prevent a muppet forcing past. Hint its not by riding with a couple of cm to spare from a parked car door.
In reply to Enty:
that and the muppet would almost certainly do serious damage to themselves as well.
Unlike the car driver who might just need a new wing.
> Probably quite a lot of damage - thankfully it's very very rare for a cyclist to ride at 40 mph in an urban area with their head down as you put it.
that and the muppet would almost certainly do serious damage to themselves as well.
Unlike the car driver who might just need a new wing.
In reply to dissonance:
There was the case recently over in Yorkshire where a councillor claimed that cyclist were racing through his village at 40-50mph knocking off wing mirrors! Apparently all the cyclists were tough enough not to need to go to A&E.
There was (is still ongoing?) a case in the States where a cyclist knocked down and killed a pedestrian whilst aiming for a best time over a Strava segment and there may have been one other also in the States. So it does happen but it is very rare, as you say, the cyclist is just as likely to injure themselves as much as whoever they hit.
ALC
There was the case recently over in Yorkshire where a councillor claimed that cyclist were racing through his village at 40-50mph knocking off wing mirrors! Apparently all the cyclists were tough enough not to need to go to A&E.
There was (is still ongoing?) a case in the States where a cyclist knocked down and killed a pedestrian whilst aiming for a best time over a Strava segment and there may have been one other also in the States. So it does happen but it is very rare, as you say, the cyclist is just as likely to injure themselves as much as whoever they hit.
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Aye, we're 'ard in Embsay. Sadly said councillor (Andy Quinn) isn't up for election this time.
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> There was the case recently over in Yorkshire where a councillor claimed that cyclist were racing through his village at 40-50mph knocking off wing mirrors! Apparently all the cyclists were tough enough not to need to go to A&E.
>
>
> There was the case recently over in Yorkshire where a councillor claimed that cyclist were racing through his village at 40-50mph knocking off wing mirrors! Apparently all the cyclists were tough enough not to need to go to A&E.
>
Aye, we're 'ard in Embsay. Sadly said councillor (Andy Quinn) isn't up for election this time.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Wasn't there a death in London when a cyclist hit a pedestrian?
There's also a few head down time trialists which have been killed in the last 20 years.
Now compared to how many hundreds of cyclists killed by cars it's not sounding like the 50/50 which is the gist of DOR's argument.
E
Wasn't there a death in London when a cyclist hit a pedestrian?
There's also a few head down time trialists which have been killed in the last 20 years.
Now compared to how many hundreds of cyclists killed by cars it's not sounding like the 50/50 which is the gist of DOR's argument.
E
In reply to dissonance:
Not sure where you are coming from here.
My suggestion is that some cyclists believe that they should be in the PP at all times to prevent cars overtaking. Full stop. That these cyclists don't make very good drivers or passengers, because they think all car drivers are dangerous and that they, as cyclists, always know best.
In the clip, this advanced cyclist who has almost psychic abilities to read the road and assess rapidly changing situations, fails to realise the bloke coming towards him is angry and stays on his bike until the guy gets close enough to hit him. At which point he thinks it might be a good idea to get off his bike. And promptly gets tangled in it and falls over.
As I've said several times, the cyclist has a 'different' view of the road to the driver, whether this is better, or his judgement of what the driver can/will do is better than the actual person in charge of the car is better is a matter of debate on an individual basis.
In this particular circumstance the cyclist is demonstrating that he is an idiot.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> Well done you can copy and paste. Although rather entertainingly you managed to chose one which disagrees with your position, namely:
> "apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
>
> [...]
>
> now how do you think we prevent a muppet forcing past. Hint its not by riding with a couple of cm to spare from a parked car door.
>
> [...]
>
> Well done you can copy and paste. Although rather entertainingly you managed to chose one which disagrees with your position, namely:
> "apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
>
> [...]
>
> now how do you think we prevent a muppet forcing past. Hint its not by riding with a couple of cm to spare from a parked car door.
Not sure where you are coming from here.
My suggestion is that some cyclists believe that they should be in the PP at all times to prevent cars overtaking. Full stop. That these cyclists don't make very good drivers or passengers, because they think all car drivers are dangerous and that they, as cyclists, always know best.
In the clip, this advanced cyclist who has almost psychic abilities to read the road and assess rapidly changing situations, fails to realise the bloke coming towards him is angry and stays on his bike until the guy gets close enough to hit him. At which point he thinks it might be a good idea to get off his bike. And promptly gets tangled in it and falls over.
As I've said several times, the cyclist has a 'different' view of the road to the driver, whether this is better, or his judgement of what the driver can/will do is better than the actual person in charge of the car is better is a matter of debate on an individual basis.
In this particular circumstance the cyclist is demonstrating that he is an idiot.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
actually no, you said several variations of:
"apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
Now if you accept that yes the cyclist does have a say in the matter and controls it by choice of road positioning then i guess the thread has actually got somewhere.
still at least he isnt a violent thug so swings and roundabouts.
> My suggestion is that some cyclists believe that they should be in the PP at all times to prevent cars overtaking. Full stop.
actually no, you said several variations of:
"apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
Now if you accept that yes the cyclist does have a say in the matter and controls it by choice of road positioning then i guess the thread has actually got somewhere.
> In this particular circumstance the cyclist is demonstrating that he is an idiot.
still at least he isnt a violent thug so swings and roundabouts.
In reply to dissonance:
Unfortunately a lot of posters concern themselves with the exact wording of sentences, taking sections out of context, without trying to find out what the author was trying to point out.
I'll try again.
At no point have I said the cyclist doesn't have a choice and doesn't control the traffic by his road positioning. In fact that's exactly what I have been saying. My issue is that SOME cyclists deliberately block traffic due to their insecurities. I know a number of cyclists who are vehemently anti car. They make very nervous passengers, they shout at car drivers when out riding (they're always in the right, of course), they've tried to learn to drive but had no road sense (apparently, all cyclists have better road sense than drivers. and this sense is heightened when they're riding and hopelessly lost when they get behind the wheel)
Move on, the issue here is that we're not all perfect, but deliberatly antagonising motorists when you're out on a bike will get the results in the video. Sooner or later.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> actually no, you said several variations of:
>
> "apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
>
> Now if you accept that yes the cyclist does have a say in the matter and controls it by choice of road positioning then i guess the thread has actually got somewhere.
>
> [...]
>
> still at least he isnt a violent thug so swings and roundabouts.
>
> [...]
>
> actually no, you said several variations of:
>
> "apparenty the cyclist knows best when the car driver should overtake. Frightening'
>
> Now if you accept that yes the cyclist does have a say in the matter and controls it by choice of road positioning then i guess the thread has actually got somewhere.
>
> [...]
>
> still at least he isnt a violent thug so swings and roundabouts.
Unfortunately a lot of posters concern themselves with the exact wording of sentences, taking sections out of context, without trying to find out what the author was trying to point out.
I'll try again.
At no point have I said the cyclist doesn't have a choice and doesn't control the traffic by his road positioning. In fact that's exactly what I have been saying. My issue is that SOME cyclists deliberately block traffic due to their insecurities. I know a number of cyclists who are vehemently anti car. They make very nervous passengers, they shout at car drivers when out riding (they're always in the right, of course), they've tried to learn to drive but had no road sense (apparently, all cyclists have better road sense than drivers. and this sense is heightened when they're riding and hopelessly lost when they get behind the wheel)
Move on, the issue here is that we're not all perfect, but deliberatly antagonising motorists when you're out on a bike will get the results in the video. Sooner or later.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
You could make that case. I'm not sure if any research has ever been done, or even how it could be done, but I know for one that my levels of concentration and spatial awareness are far higher on a bike than in a car. Cars create this feeling of invulnerability that bikes don't.
Once again- at what point does the cyclist 'deliberately antagonise' any motorist?
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>(apparently, all cyclists have better road sense than drivers. and this sense is heightened when they're riding and hopelessly lost when they get behind the wheel)> [...]
You could make that case. I'm not sure if any research has ever been done, or even how it could be done, but I know for one that my levels of concentration and spatial awareness are far higher on a bike than in a car. Cars create this feeling of invulnerability that bikes don't.
>
> Move on, the issue here is that we're not all perfect, but deliberatly antagonising motorists when you're out on a bike will get the results in the video. Sooner or later.
> Move on, the issue here is that we're not all perfect, but deliberatly antagonising motorists when you're out on a bike will get the results in the video. Sooner or later.
Once again- at what point does the cyclist 'deliberately antagonise' any motorist?
In reply to Trevers:
They both seem to be winding each other up. The cyclist I would say is antoganistic when the car is reversing and when blowing his horn repeatedly (even after passing the van). The van driver when stopping in the middle of the road and when passing too close, and when starting a fight, obviously.
> Once again- at what point does the cyclist 'deliberately antagonise' any motorist?
They both seem to be winding each other up. The cyclist I would say is antoganistic when the car is reversing and when blowing his horn repeatedly (even after passing the van). The van driver when stopping in the middle of the road and when passing too close, and when starting a fight, obviously.
In reply to MG:
Lets face it, the cyclist was asking for a smack in the face and he asked the right person for the job.
Lets face it, the cyclist was asking for a smack in the face and he asked the right person for the job.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Let's face it, trolling isn't big or clever
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Lets face it, the cyclist was asking for a smack in the face and he asked the right person for the job.
>
> Lets face it, the cyclist was asking for a smack in the face and he asked the right person for the job.
Let's face it, trolling isn't big or clever
In reply to Trevers:
You don't deal with disagreement well, do you?
Let me guess, an only child?
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> Let's face it, trolling isn't big or clever
> [...]
>
> Let's face it, trolling isn't big or clever
You don't deal with disagreement well, do you?
Let me guess, an only child?
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Generally yes, people do take what people write as it stands. I could just invent arguments for you instead.
If you find yourself misunderstood by a lot of posters I suggest you might need to consider that, just possibly, it is your fault and not those reading.
so why didnt you write that then. Although I am fascinated by how you know this to be the case. What sort of survey protocol did you use?
How do you know this was deliberate antagonising? Thats without going into is cycling more defensively than needed due to insecurities actually deliberately anatagonising?
> Unfortunately a lot of posters concern themselves with the exact wording of sentences, taking sections out of context, without trying to find out what the author was trying to point out.
Generally yes, people do take what people write as it stands. I could just invent arguments for you instead.
If you find yourself misunderstood by a lot of posters I suggest you might need to consider that, just possibly, it is your fault and not those reading.
> At no point have I said the cyclist doesn't have a choice and doesn't control the traffic by his road positioning. In fact that's exactly what I have been saying. My issue is that SOME cyclists deliberately block traffic due to their insecurities.
so why didnt you write that then. Although I am fascinated by how you know this to be the case. What sort of survey protocol did you use?
> Move on, the issue here is that we're not all perfect, but deliberatly antagonising motorists when you're out on a bike will get the results in the video. Sooner or later.
How do you know this was deliberate antagonising? Thats without going into is cycling more defensively than needed due to insecurities actually deliberately anatagonising?
In reply to dissonance:
No. Generally there is a lot of people here who pick out sections that suit them in order to create some sort of argument. Just look around at some of the threads. I post here less often now because there is no discussion, it's all about point scoring and winning arguments, and frequently just descends into arguments about exactly what people wrote.
I'm not here for an argument or to be won over by debate on technical constructions of people sentences. I'm here for discussion. It's not a court of law.
It may not be deliberate antagonising. It isn't in the vast number of cases where people get it wrong. You get a near miss, someone says sorry, everyone gets on with their lives.
Occasionally you get people like this cyclist who is obviously out on a one man crusade against motorists. Possibly even anyone who doesn't do everything exactly as he thinks it should be done.
What makes me think he is? Well, I watched the video, and some of the others. I guess the police did too and they haven't charged the motorist with anything. Maybe they think the same way as I do.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> Generally yes, people do take what people write as it stands. I could just invent arguments for you instead.
> If you find yourself misunderstood by a lot of posters I suggest you might need to consider that, just possibly, it is your fault and not those reading.
>
> [...]
>
> so why didnt you write that then. Although I am fascinated by how you know this to be the case. What sort of survey protocol did you use?
>
> [...]
>
> How do you know this was deliberate antagonising? Thats without going into is cycling more defensively than needed due to insecurities actually deliberately anatagonising?
>
> [...]
>
> Generally yes, people do take what people write as it stands. I could just invent arguments for you instead.
> If you find yourself misunderstood by a lot of posters I suggest you might need to consider that, just possibly, it is your fault and not those reading.
>
> [...]
>
> so why didnt you write that then. Although I am fascinated by how you know this to be the case. What sort of survey protocol did you use?
>
> [...]
>
> How do you know this was deliberate antagonising? Thats without going into is cycling more defensively than needed due to insecurities actually deliberately anatagonising?
No. Generally there is a lot of people here who pick out sections that suit them in order to create some sort of argument. Just look around at some of the threads. I post here less often now because there is no discussion, it's all about point scoring and winning arguments, and frequently just descends into arguments about exactly what people wrote.
I'm not here for an argument or to be won over by debate on technical constructions of people sentences. I'm here for discussion. It's not a court of law.
It may not be deliberate antagonising. It isn't in the vast number of cases where people get it wrong. You get a near miss, someone says sorry, everyone gets on with their lives.
Occasionally you get people like this cyclist who is obviously out on a one man crusade against motorists. Possibly even anyone who doesn't do everything exactly as he thinks it should be done.
What makes me think he is? Well, I watched the video, and some of the others. I guess the police did too and they haven't charged the motorist with anything. Maybe they think the same way as I do.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
No but for a discussion you need to be able to write clearly. However if you dont feel thats a issue then so be it.
Amazingly, you would be wrong. I suggest you reread the article linked to by the OP in particular the last paragraph.
> I'm not here for an argument or to be won over by debate on technical constructions of people sentences. I'm here for discussion. It's not a court of law.
No but for a discussion you need to be able to write clearly. However if you dont feel thats a issue then so be it.
> What makes me think he is? Well, I watched the video, and some of the others. I guess the police did too and they haven't charged the motorist with anything. Maybe they think the same way as I do.
Amazingly, you would be wrong. I suggest you reread the article linked to by the OP in particular the last paragraph.
In reply to dissonance: "No but for a discussion you need to be able to write clearly. However if you dont feel thats a issue then so be it."
You're missing two commas and two apostrophes.
You're missing two commas and two apostrophes.
In reply to dissonance:
Again, I'm lost. What do you mean by amazingly?
The motorist was caught on camera. Can't do anything but admit he pushed the cyclist. Pays compensation and accepts a caution.
The police review the video evidence and advise the cyclist what the outcome of a prosecution would be.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> No but for a discussion you need to be able to write clearly. However if you dont feel thats a issue then so be it.
>
> [...]
>
> Amazingly, you would be wrong. I suggest you reread the article linked to by the OP in particular the last paragraph.
>
> [...]
>
> No but for a discussion you need to be able to write clearly. However if you dont feel thats a issue then so be it.
>
> [...]
>
> Amazingly, you would be wrong. I suggest you reread the article linked to by the OP in particular the last paragraph.
Again, I'm lost. What do you mean by amazingly?
The motorist was caught on camera. Can't do anything but admit he pushed the cyclist. Pays compensation and accepts a caution.
The police review the video evidence and advise the cyclist what the outcome of a prosecution would be.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Interesting conclusion. Actually I just don't have time for the attitude that cyclists are asking for it and deserve whatever comes their way
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> You don't deal with disagreement well, do you?
>
> Let me guess, an only child?
> [...]
>
> You don't deal with disagreement well, do you?
>
> Let me guess, an only child?
Interesting conclusion. Actually I just don't have time for the attitude that cyclists are asking for it and deserve whatever comes their way
In reply to Trevers:
Of course cyclists are not in general "asking for it". Did someone say they were?
> (In reply to Mike Highbury)
>
> Interesting conclusion. Actually I just don't have time for the attitude that cyclists are asking for it and deserve whatever comes their way.
>
> Interesting conclusion. Actually I just don't have time for the attitude that cyclists are asking for it and deserve whatever comes their way.
Of course cyclists are not in general "asking for it". Did someone say they were?
In reply to Robert Durran:
It's the internet. Someone failed to say exactly what they meant and everyone else failed to use any intelligence to fill in what was meant.
It's damn hard to write:
Sometimes some people who ride bicycles make errors of judgement when under other pressures of life which make them angry and while they shouldn't be riding in that state of mind they do, which results in them annoying other road users who may also be driving cars when under similar pressures of life, who then become angry and act out of character.
It's much easier to paraphrase and assume the reader has a brain.
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> Of course cyclists are not in general "asking for it". Did someone say they were?
> [...]
>
> Of course cyclists are not in general "asking for it". Did someone say they were?
It's the internet. Someone failed to say exactly what they meant and everyone else failed to use any intelligence to fill in what was meant.
It's damn hard to write:
Sometimes some people who ride bicycles make errors of judgement when under other pressures of life which make them angry and while they shouldn't be riding in that state of mind they do, which results in them annoying other road users who may also be driving cars when under similar pressures of life, who then become angry and act out of character.
It's much easier to paraphrase and assume the reader has a brain.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Ok, I'm going to step back and breathe.
There's a worrying number of comments in this thread along the lines of 'the driver shouldn't have done that, but the cyclist brought it upon himself'. Since the van driver wasn't in any danger, and the cyclist didn't deliberately antagonise, I can't understand that unless you're already biased against cyclists.
Also, chasing someone down who annoys you, and assaulting them 'out of character'? A bit of swearing and beeping I could understand, but...
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> It's the internet. Someone failed to say exactly what they meant and everyone else failed to use any intelligence to fill in what was meant.
>
> It's damn hard to write:
>
> Sometimes some people who ride bicycles make errors of judgement when under other pressures of life which make them angry and while they shouldn't be riding in that state of mind they do, which results in them annoying other road users who may also be driving cars when under similar pressures of life, who then become angry and act out of character.
> [...]
>
> It's the internet. Someone failed to say exactly what they meant and everyone else failed to use any intelligence to fill in what was meant.
>
> It's damn hard to write:
>
> Sometimes some people who ride bicycles make errors of judgement when under other pressures of life which make them angry and while they shouldn't be riding in that state of mind they do, which results in them annoying other road users who may also be driving cars when under similar pressures of life, who then become angry and act out of character.
Ok, I'm going to step back and breathe.
There's a worrying number of comments in this thread along the lines of 'the driver shouldn't have done that, but the cyclist brought it upon himself'. Since the van driver wasn't in any danger, and the cyclist didn't deliberately antagonise, I can't understand that unless you're already biased against cyclists.
Also, chasing someone down who annoys you, and assaulting them 'out of character'? A bit of swearing and beeping I could understand, but...
In reply to Trevers:
I think the issue is that as soon as you say 'cyclist' everyone assumes a side and thinks you're tarring all cyclists (and drivers) with the same brush.
The problem with the video is that there is a lot going on you can't see. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of 'an idiot on a bike' (not using cyclist here) are seeing it from one point of view. A point of view that is reinforced when you watch his other videos.
It's called road rage, it happens all the time. It's not a driver/cyclist thing. It just happens to be here.
As I say he's doing nothing to further good riding or positive attitude towards cycling.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> Ok, I'm going to step back and breathe.
>
> There's a worrying number of comments in this thread along the lines of 'the driver shouldn't have done that, but the cyclist brought it upon himself'. Since the van driver wasn't in any danger, and the cyclist didn't deliberately antagonise, I can't understand that unless you're already biased against cyclists.
>
> Also, chasing someone down who annoys you, and assaulting them 'out of character'? A bit of swearing and beeping I could understand, but...
> [...]
>
> Ok, I'm going to step back and breathe.
>
> There's a worrying number of comments in this thread along the lines of 'the driver shouldn't have done that, but the cyclist brought it upon himself'. Since the van driver wasn't in any danger, and the cyclist didn't deliberately antagonise, I can't understand that unless you're already biased against cyclists.
>
> Also, chasing someone down who annoys you, and assaulting them 'out of character'? A bit of swearing and beeping I could understand, but...
I think the issue is that as soon as you say 'cyclist' everyone assumes a side and thinks you're tarring all cyclists (and drivers) with the same brush.
The problem with the video is that there is a lot going on you can't see. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of 'an idiot on a bike' (not using cyclist here) are seeing it from one point of view. A point of view that is reinforced when you watch his other videos.
It's called road rage, it happens all the time. It's not a driver/cyclist thing. It just happens to be here.
As I say he's doing nothing to further good riding or positive attitude towards cycling.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
As you said, there's a lot you can't see here, since the cyclists peripheral vision and hearing easily beat the helmetcam. As far as I can see however, the only contentious bit is at the start with the car reversing into the space. It looks like there's a misunderstanding at the start when the cyclist has come to a halt, and probably the cyclist stops too late and goes earlier than he should. The rest of it, you could interpret as the cyclist trying to escape from the driver. Even if youi don't see it that way, I'm still struggling to find fault with the way he's cycling.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the cyclist is always right. I get pretty pissed off with cyclists in London all the time.
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> I think the issue is that as soon as you say 'cyclist' everyone assumes a side and thinks you're tarring all cyclists (and drivers) with the same brush.
>
> The problem with the video is that there is a lot going on you can't see. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of 'an idiot on a bike' (not using cyclist here) are seeing it from one point of view. A point of view that is reinforced when you watch his other videos.
> [...]
>
> I think the issue is that as soon as you say 'cyclist' everyone assumes a side and thinks you're tarring all cyclists (and drivers) with the same brush.
>
> The problem with the video is that there is a lot going on you can't see. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of 'an idiot on a bike' (not using cyclist here) are seeing it from one point of view. A point of view that is reinforced when you watch his other videos.
As you said, there's a lot you can't see here, since the cyclists peripheral vision and hearing easily beat the helmetcam. As far as I can see however, the only contentious bit is at the start with the car reversing into the space. It looks like there's a misunderstanding at the start when the cyclist has come to a halt, and probably the cyclist stops too late and goes earlier than he should. The rest of it, you could interpret as the cyclist trying to escape from the driver. Even if youi don't see it that way, I'm still struggling to find fault with the way he's cycling.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the cyclist is always right. I get pretty pissed off with cyclists in London all the time.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/assaulted.126416/
Thread started by the chap involved in this video, interesting reading towards the end! Sounds like its all spiraled somewhat.
Thread started by the chap involved in this video, interesting reading towards the end! Sounds like its all spiraled somewhat.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
that you failed to understand and were wrong.
i suggest you try reading it again.
> Again, I'm lost. What do you mean by amazingly?
that you failed to understand and were wrong.
> The police review the video evidence and advise the cyclist what the outcome of a prosecution would be.
i suggest you try reading it again.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
It seems that prosecuting violent behaviour is going out of fashion - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
ALC
It seems that prosecuting violent behaviour is going out of fashion - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Fashion?
Bloody hell, another one!
How old are you guys?
It's been pretty much proved that locking everyone in prison doesn't work. Maybe you want us to return to the Victorian age.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> It seems that prosecuting violent behaviour is going out of fashion - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
>
> ALC
>
> It seems that prosecuting violent behaviour is going out of fashion - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
>
> ALC
Fashion?
Bloody hell, another one!
How old are you guys?
It's been pretty much proved that locking everyone in prison doesn't work. Maybe you want us to return to the Victorian age.
In reply to dissonance:
No. You read it and work out what happened and sumerise it in one line from a third party point of view.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> that you failed to understand and were wrong.
>
>
> [...]
>
> i suggest you try reading it again.
>
> [...]
>
> that you failed to understand and were wrong.
>
>
> [...]
>
> i suggest you try reading it again.
No. You read it and work out what happened and sumerise it in one line from a third party point of view.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Who said anything about locking people up? I wrote about "prosecuting violent behaviour" not the subsequent punishment. You need to read what is actually written.
The article begins with "More than 10,000 serious violent crimes were dealt with informally last year, despite guidelines to the contrary." I realise that there's a sliding scale of criminal violence around which various tags are applied: ABH, GBH, etc. There's also a difference between someone who has never been in trouble with the police before and happens to get in to a fight and someone who is habitually violent. Even a caution would mean that the perpetrator might just think twice in similar scenarios in the future.
ALC
Who said anything about locking people up? I wrote about "prosecuting violent behaviour" not the subsequent punishment. You need to read what is actually written.
The article begins with "More than 10,000 serious violent crimes were dealt with informally last year, despite guidelines to the contrary." I realise that there's a sliding scale of criminal violence around which various tags are applied: ABH, GBH, etc. There's also a difference between someone who has never been in trouble with the police before and happens to get in to a fight and someone who is habitually violent. Even a caution would mean that the perpetrator might just think twice in similar scenarios in the future.
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber: Indeed. Guidelines are guidelines. Prosecution involves the courts. It's the police's job to keep the police. I would hope that, as in the past, habitual criminals come to the attention of the police pretty quickly. They did in the old days before the police were inundated with paperwork.
Do we want out police out there keeping the peace or filling in endless forms.
Do we want out police out there keeping the peace or filling in endless forms.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes because most things can be so easily summed up in one sentence. Twitter is not a good model for discussion.
How about we stick to the facts? Now you seem to think that him not being charged is significant, however we can take the OP or indeed look at the Times and see the report is that the police were restricted in what they could do.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3752405.ece
> No. You read it and work out what happened and sumerise it in one line from a third party point of view.
Yes because most things can be so easily summed up in one sentence. Twitter is not a good model for discussion.
How about we stick to the facts? Now you seem to think that him not being charged is significant, however we can take the OP or indeed look at the Times and see the report is that the police were restricted in what they could do.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3752405.ece
In reply to dissonance:
I'm not subscribed to The Times so can't read it. The headline paragraph says no more than what we already know.
The whole premise of the thread is about the Cyclist failing to get satisfaction.
The police looked at the video and the cyclist's injuries, recommended that he accepted an apology. The van driver spoke to his lawyer and the lawyer recommended he accepted the caution and paid the compensation.
The alternative is a lengthy expensive court case where nobody gets anything because the only evidence is a bit of video.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes because most things can be so easily summed up in one sentence. Twitter is not a good model for discussion.
> How about we stick to the facts? Now you seem to think that him not being charged is significant, however we can take the OP or indeed look at the Times and see the report is that the police were restricted in what they could do.
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3752405.ece
>
> [...]
>
> Yes because most things can be so easily summed up in one sentence. Twitter is not a good model for discussion.
> How about we stick to the facts? Now you seem to think that him not being charged is significant, however we can take the OP or indeed look at the Times and see the report is that the police were restricted in what they could do.
>
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3752405.ece
I'm not subscribed to The Times so can't read it. The headline paragraph says no more than what we already know.
The whole premise of the thread is about the Cyclist failing to get satisfaction.
The police looked at the video and the cyclist's injuries, recommended that he accepted an apology. The van driver spoke to his lawyer and the lawyer recommended he accepted the caution and paid the compensation.
The alternative is a lengthy expensive court case where nobody gets anything because the only evidence is a bit of video.
In reply to Alan Taylor:
Interesting the police feel they were restricted, when this says the opposite (i.e. addault is a violent crime and shouldn't be dealt with by these community resolutions)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
Interesting the police feel they were restricted, when this says the opposite (i.e. addault is a violent crime and shouldn't be dealt with by these community resolutions)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
In reply to balmybaldwin: am I right in thinking this would skew official statistics?
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It suggests "serious" violent crime shouldn't be dealt with that way - this looked like a common assault.
> (In reply to Alan Taylor)
>
> Interesting the police feel they were restricted, when this says the opposite (i.e. addault is a violent crime and shouldn't be dealt with by these community resolutions)
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
>
> Interesting the police feel they were restricted, when this says the opposite (i.e. addault is a violent crime and shouldn't be dealt with by these community resolutions)
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22346971
It suggests "serious" violent crime shouldn't be dealt with that way - this looked like a common assault.
In reply to sleavesley:
No, it's a detected crime either way. It would be included in the crime stats.
> (In reply to balmybaldwin) am I right in thinking this would skew official statistics?
No, it's a detected crime either way. It would be included in the crime stats.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
How the heck do you know he's riding where he is to wind up somebody behiend him?
Are you telapathic via footage on youtube or something?
Can't think how else you'd know...
> (In reply to 999thAndy)
> [...]
>
> But the cyclist doesn't have ALL the information available to him, he only has a very one sided view. Lots of those 'could' happen. There is no problem in taking the PP ever. However, he is taking the PP position with the expess intention to wind someone up and cause a reaction. The cyclist pretty much damns himslf by having a YouTube collection of similar incidents.
>
> You would have thought he would have learned by now.
> [...]
>
> But the cyclist doesn't have ALL the information available to him, he only has a very one sided view. Lots of those 'could' happen. There is no problem in taking the PP ever. However, he is taking the PP position with the expess intention to wind someone up and cause a reaction. The cyclist pretty much damns himslf by having a YouTube collection of similar incidents.
>
> You would have thought he would have learned by now.
How the heck do you know he's riding where he is to wind up somebody behiend him?
Are you telapathic via footage on youtube or something?
Can't think how else you'd know...
In reply to Timmd:
I think that's the nearest I've ever seen you lose the rag with someone on here Tim!
I think that's the nearest I've ever seen you lose the rag with someone on here Tim!
In reply to Timmd:
At the point that the van overtakes he could have slowed and let the van pass quickly. Instead he keeps pedalling. Then when the van passes he's straight on the horn, waving his arms and shouting. Not exactly actions that would diffuse a potential road rage incident.
His YouTube Chanel is full of incidents like that. Kind of leads me to believe he's going out looking for them. They don't happen to me when I'm on my bike. Respect other road users.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> How the heck do you know he's riding where he is to wind up somebody behiend him?
>
> Are you telapathic via footage on youtube or something?
>
> Can't think how else you'd know...
> [...]
>
> How the heck do you know he's riding where he is to wind up somebody behiend him?
>
> Are you telapathic via footage on youtube or something?
>
> Can't think how else you'd know...
At the point that the van overtakes he could have slowed and let the van pass quickly. Instead he keeps pedalling. Then when the van passes he's straight on the horn, waving his arms and shouting. Not exactly actions that would diffuse a potential road rage incident.
His YouTube Chanel is full of incidents like that. Kind of leads me to believe he's going out looking for them. They don't happen to me when I'm on my bike. Respect other road users.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
If you've never been cut up, pulled out on, left hooked or overtaken wwith inches to spare, then you're extremely lucky. And why is it only motorists that have the right not to be held up by other road users?
> (In reply to Timmd)
> [...]
>
> At the point that the van overtakes he could have slowed and let the van pass quickly. Instead he keeps pedalling. Then when the van passes he's straight on the horn, waving his arms and shouting. Not exactly actions that would diffuse a potential road rage incident.
>
> His YouTube Chanel is full of incidents like that. Kind of leads me to believe he's going out looking for them. They don't happen to me when I'm on my bike. Respect other road users.
> [...]
>
> At the point that the van overtakes he could have slowed and let the van pass quickly. Instead he keeps pedalling. Then when the van passes he's straight on the horn, waving his arms and shouting. Not exactly actions that would diffuse a potential road rage incident.
>
> His YouTube Chanel is full of incidents like that. Kind of leads me to believe he's going out looking for them. They don't happen to me when I'm on my bike. Respect other road users.
If you've never been cut up, pulled out on, left hooked or overtaken wwith inches to spare, then you're extremely lucky. And why is it only motorists that have the right not to be held up by other road users?
In reply to Trevers:
Nope. All those things have happened to me. The big difference being I just get on with it. I don't have an air horn (mad!), and I don't wave my arms and shout at strangers. It only makes things worse. In Birmingham someone will give you a gentle reminder to be more polite. In London you run the risk of getting stabbed or shot.
The cyclist seemed pretty annoyed at being held up by the parking car.
It's not an us and them war. Unless, like that cyclist, you want to start one.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
> [...]
>
> If you've never been cut up, pulled out on, left hooked or overtaken wwith inches to spare, then you're extremely lucky. And why is it only motorists that have the right not to be held up by other road users?
> [...]
>
> If you've never been cut up, pulled out on, left hooked or overtaken wwith inches to spare, then you're extremely lucky. And why is it only motorists that have the right not to be held up by other road users?
Nope. All those things have happened to me. The big difference being I just get on with it. I don't have an air horn (mad!), and I don't wave my arms and shout at strangers. It only makes things worse. In Birmingham someone will give you a gentle reminder to be more polite. In London you run the risk of getting stabbed or shot.
The cyclist seemed pretty annoyed at being held up by the parking car.
It's not an us and them war. Unless, like that cyclist, you want to start one.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
By that logic, cars with loud horns are also mad? A horn should be used to warn other road users of your presence. Cyclists are small, and, it would seem, often invisible to other road users. So it would seem that they more than anyone should have a loud horn to alert other road users to their presence, road users who appear to have missed the presence of a cycle.
(I don't have any warning device fitted to my bike; I shout instead...)
> I don't have an air horn (mad!)
By that logic, cars with loud horns are also mad? A horn should be used to warn other road users of your presence. Cyclists are small, and, it would seem, often invisible to other road users. So it would seem that they more than anyone should have a loud horn to alert other road users to their presence, road users who appear to have missed the presence of a cycle.
(I don't have any warning device fitted to my bike; I shout instead...)
In reply to DancingOnRock:
If you want to just get on with it that's fine for you, but I don't see why all cyclists should just have to accept it. Not just the innocently misjudged overtakes but the maliciously bad driving, and the swearing and threats that go with it. Moreover road cycling is a tense affair, and minor overreactions over things like close passes should be tolerated.
I'm not remotely interested in 'starting a war'. I communicate with the drivers around me, I give people a wave when they wait and don't try to force a way through, and I've gone out of my way to let trains of cars through. I want drivers on my side after all, especially if they have to provide a witness statement if another one puts me in hospital.
> (In reply to Trevers)
> [...]
>
> Nope. All those things have happened to me. The big difference being I just get on with it. I don't have an air horn (mad!), and I don't wave my arms and shout at strangers. It only makes things worse. In Birmingham someone will give you a gentle reminder to be more polite. In London you run the risk of getting stabbed or shot.
> [...]
>
> Nope. All those things have happened to me. The big difference being I just get on with it. I don't have an air horn (mad!), and I don't wave my arms and shout at strangers. It only makes things worse. In Birmingham someone will give you a gentle reminder to be more polite. In London you run the risk of getting stabbed or shot.
If you want to just get on with it that's fine for you, but I don't see why all cyclists should just have to accept it. Not just the innocently misjudged overtakes but the maliciously bad driving, and the swearing and threats that go with it. Moreover road cycling is a tense affair, and minor overreactions over things like close passes should be tolerated.
I'm not remotely interested in 'starting a war'. I communicate with the drivers around me, I give people a wave when they wait and don't try to force a way through, and I've gone out of my way to let trains of cars through. I want drivers on my side after all, especially if they have to provide a witness statement if another one puts me in hospital.
In reply to captain paranoia: It's called Architecture of Design. The warning is twofold and conveys more information than just 'Watch out'.
The bicycle bell says watch out bicycle.
The car horn says watch out car.
The air horn says watch out lorry.
The van driver knows there is a bike there, he's just overtaken it! What he's not expecting, and is confusing and probably scared the life out of him, is an air horn. He's likely to slam on the brakes and look to try and find out where that great big lorry came from. Leaving poor Mr Cyclist to run into the back of him, wondering why the driver suddenly stopped.
The bicycle bell says watch out bicycle.
The car horn says watch out car.
The air horn says watch out lorry.
The van driver knows there is a bike there, he's just overtaken it! What he's not expecting, and is confusing and probably scared the life out of him, is an air horn. He's likely to slam on the brakes and look to try and find out where that great big lorry came from. Leaving poor Mr Cyclist to run into the back of him, wondering why the driver suddenly stopped.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Actually (and I'm normally pathologically pro-cyclist, having been scared to death on many occasions) I agree about the use of an air horn (or any horn) as a "bollocking device" - its purpose, whether on a lorry or a bike, is to warn people of your presence, not to shout at people. I get very pissed off by car drivers that pass me on my bike with their hand pressed on the horn to show me how displeased they are I've held up their journey for a few nanoseconds, and i wish the police would prosecute people for it - it scares the life out of you because you immediately assume you're about to be hit.
So I agree this bloke shouldn't go around sounding off (geddit?) every time someone gets too close - by all means use it to tell people if you think they've not seen you, but once he's gone, wave your arms about if it helps but don't honk your hooter.
> (In reply to captain paranoia) It's called Architecture of Design. The warning is twofold and conveys more information than just 'Watch out'.
>
> The bicycle bell says watch out bicycle.
> The car horn says watch out car.
> The air horn says watch out lorry.
>
> The van driver knows there is a bike there, he's just overtaken it! What he's not expecting, and is confusing and probably scared the life out of him, is an air horn. He's likely to slam on the brakes and look to try and find out where that great big lorry came from. Leaving poor Mr Cyclist to run into the back of him, wondering why the driver suddenly stopped.
>
> The bicycle bell says watch out bicycle.
> The car horn says watch out car.
> The air horn says watch out lorry.
>
> The van driver knows there is a bike there, he's just overtaken it! What he's not expecting, and is confusing and probably scared the life out of him, is an air horn. He's likely to slam on the brakes and look to try and find out where that great big lorry came from. Leaving poor Mr Cyclist to run into the back of him, wondering why the driver suddenly stopped.
Actually (and I'm normally pathologically pro-cyclist, having been scared to death on many occasions) I agree about the use of an air horn (or any horn) as a "bollocking device" - its purpose, whether on a lorry or a bike, is to warn people of your presence, not to shout at people. I get very pissed off by car drivers that pass me on my bike with their hand pressed on the horn to show me how displeased they are I've held up their journey for a few nanoseconds, and i wish the police would prosecute people for it - it scares the life out of you because you immediately assume you're about to be hit.
So I agree this bloke shouldn't go around sounding off (geddit?) every time someone gets too close - by all means use it to tell people if you think they've not seen you, but once he's gone, wave your arms about if it helps but don't honk your hooter.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I agree that air horns are a bad idea on bikes. You either come across as an aggressive cock or produce a panic swerve from crap drivers. They do seem to crop up a lot on headcam 'bad driving' videos, for some reason, and bizarrely, seem to be more about getting your outraged complaint heard by the driver in question than forewarning anyone.
If you look at this bloke's videos with hindsight, it seems inevitable he'd end up in a violent confrontation. He just crossed paths with the right angry little tw*t.
I agree that air horns are a bad idea on bikes. You either come across as an aggressive cock or produce a panic swerve from crap drivers. They do seem to crop up a lot on headcam 'bad driving' videos, for some reason, and bizarrely, seem to be more about getting your outraged complaint heard by the driver in question than forewarning anyone.
If you look at this bloke's videos with hindsight, it seems inevitable he'd end up in a violent confrontation. He just crossed paths with the right angry little tw*t.
In reply to andy:
You're out Embsay way aren't you. Driving standards in the south Dales are abysmal in my experience. Can't imagine roadying rather than MTBing in this area, would be a total stress-fest.
You're out Embsay way aren't you. Driving standards in the south Dales are abysmal in my experience. Can't imagine roadying rather than MTBing in this area, would be a total stress-fest.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
With the best will in the world all of that is supposition.
He knows full well he passed a cyclist and got the hump because someone said (with a horn) 'watch out I'm on the road as well and you were cutting in too sharply' which not very disimilar to what someone would do in a car.
The cyclist in that video may be an idiot sometimes (I haven't watched the rest of vids) but I can't see how that justifies someone deliberately oopening a door on a cyclist and then later punching them. Ultimately the van driver is responsible for his actions.
With the best will in the world all of that is supposition.
He knows full well he passed a cyclist and got the hump because someone said (with a horn) 'watch out I'm on the road as well and you were cutting in too sharply' which not very disimilar to what someone would do in a car.
The cyclist in that video may be an idiot sometimes (I haven't watched the rest of vids) but I can't see how that justifies someone deliberately oopening a door on a cyclist and then later punching them. Ultimately the van driver is responsible for his actions.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you really think a van driver rocking out to BBC Radio 1 is going to hear a bicycle bell? FFS. I get that you don't like cyclists and think we are second class road users and deserve to learn a lesson, I get that you don't think assaulting somebody who annoys you is wrong, but that doesn't mean you need to say such blatantly stupid things! You need to support your incorrect argument with things that sound REASONABLE and make you sound INTELLIGENT! Obvious nonsense isn't going to get people on your side!
What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you really think a van driver rocking out to BBC Radio 1 is going to hear a bicycle bell? FFS. I get that you don't like cyclists and think we are second class road users and deserve to learn a lesson, I get that you don't think assaulting somebody who annoys you is wrong, but that doesn't mean you need to say such blatantly stupid things! You need to support your incorrect argument with things that sound REASONABLE and make you sound INTELLIGENT! Obvious nonsense isn't going to get people on your side!
In reply to MHutch:
Yep. To be honest I've noticed a real difference since the Limpicks - I ride with a couple of clubs (Skipton and Ilkley), neither of which are particularly "assertive" groups (ie we tend to line out most times, unlike some of the other local clubs who ride as a big group all the time) and we don't have too much bother.
> (In reply to andy)
>
> You're out Embsay way aren't you. Driving standards in the south Dales are abysmal in my experience. Can't imagine roadying rather than MTBing in this area, would be a total stress-fest.
>
> You're out Embsay way aren't you. Driving standards in the south Dales are abysmal in my experience. Can't imagine roadying rather than MTBing in this area, would be a total stress-fest.
Yep. To be honest I've noticed a real difference since the Limpicks - I ride with a couple of clubs (Skipton and Ilkley), neither of which are particularly "assertive" groups (ie we tend to line out most times, unlike some of the other local clubs who ride as a big group all the time) and we don't have too much bother.
In reply to andy:
I don't mind well-disciplined bunches too much when I'm driving - easier to overtake TBH rather than having to do five or six manoeuvres to get past the line (except on backroads obviously).
I don't mind well-disciplined bunches too much when I'm driving - easier to overtake TBH rather than having to do five or six manoeuvres to get past the line (except on backroads obviously).
In reply to Bob_the_Builder:
Really? Have you read and understood any of my posts?
Like Andy I am pro cyclist and realise that there are two sides of every story.
I'm not defending or excusing that driver anywhere.
This thread is about one particular cyclist who has some serious anger issues.
I'm a cyclist and think that people like this cyclist are doing far more harm than good.
You may think my posts are unintelligent and make no sense because you have assumed I am arguing something different to the normal 'all cyclists good, motorist is always the bad guy' point of view. I'm not trying to 'win' an argument, just pointing out that this particular cyclist is an idiot.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you really think a van driver rocking out to BBC Radio 1 is going to hear a bicycle bell? FFS. I get that you don't like cyclists and think we are second class road users and deserve to learn a lesson, I get that you don't think assaulting somebody who annoys you is wrong, but that doesn't mean you need to say such blatantly stupid things! You need to support your incorrect argument with things that sound REASONABLE and make you sound INTELLIGENT! Obvious nonsense isn't going to get people on your side!
>
> What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you really think a van driver rocking out to BBC Radio 1 is going to hear a bicycle bell? FFS. I get that you don't like cyclists and think we are second class road users and deserve to learn a lesson, I get that you don't think assaulting somebody who annoys you is wrong, but that doesn't mean you need to say such blatantly stupid things! You need to support your incorrect argument with things that sound REASONABLE and make you sound INTELLIGENT! Obvious nonsense isn't going to get people on your side!
Really? Have you read and understood any of my posts?
Like Andy I am pro cyclist and realise that there are two sides of every story.
I'm not defending or excusing that driver anywhere.
This thread is about one particular cyclist who has some serious anger issues.
I'm a cyclist and think that people like this cyclist are doing far more harm than good.
You may think my posts are unintelligent and make no sense because you have assumed I am arguing something different to the normal 'all cyclists good, motorist is always the bad guy' point of view. I'm not trying to 'win' an argument, just pointing out that this particular cyclist is an idiot.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
In what way? Are you judging on the basis of that one video, or his catalogue?
I'm not saying this to be inflammatory, I believe it's true. I don't think that meekly accepting whatever crap you get from drivers does cyclists any good at all, it just reinforces the perception that cyclists are second class road users who belong in the gutter. Although you get the occasional ignorant or downright nasty driver who will interpret it as you deliberately slowing them down, I'd say that being assertive gains you far more respect from drivers in the long run.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of being meek, but we clearly have very different perceptions of events in that video.
> I'm a cyclist and think that people like this cyclist are doing far more harm than good.
In what way? Are you judging on the basis of that one video, or his catalogue?
I'm not saying this to be inflammatory, I believe it's true. I don't think that meekly accepting whatever crap you get from drivers does cyclists any good at all, it just reinforces the perception that cyclists are second class road users who belong in the gutter. Although you get the occasional ignorant or downright nasty driver who will interpret it as you deliberately slowing them down, I'd say that being assertive gains you far more respect from drivers in the long run.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of being meek, but we clearly have very different perceptions of events in that video.
In reply to Toby S:
In real life i'm horrible. ()
> (In reply to Timmd)
>
> I think that's the nearest I've ever seen you lose the rag with someone on here Tim!
>
> I think that's the nearest I've ever seen you lose the rag with someone on here Tim!
In real life i'm horrible. ()
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Pesky cyclists getting in the bloody way again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dNFaAqS2f18
E
Pesky cyclists getting in the bloody way again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dNFaAqS2f18
E
In reply to Trevers: My view of the events in that video?
Something happened, none of us know what, when the cyclist was level with the van waiting for the car to get parked.
Then the cyclist carried on and I don't think he was being chased. He wasn't looking round or doing anything until he passed the zebra crossing. Then he swung out to pass the parked cars. He may or may not have indicated, or checked what was behind, the van driver should probably have anticipated this anyway.
The van driver then tries to overtake, whether he should or not is probably another discussion. He passes but the cyclist could have been making all sorts of gestures, he didn't seem happy about being overtaken and going on his reaction when the van pulled in I would suggest he had already decided to blow his horn, shout and wave.
I'm assertive when I ride and when I drive, but having driven for 30years and covered over 600,000 miles in the last 20years, there comes a point when you realise that you get to your destination in a much better mood, and in one piece if you use your energy to read the road and ride/drive assertively or defensively depending on the situation.
The cyclist in the video is assertive and aggressive from the start. At the point where he could have been defensive he was offensive.
The video in isolation is difficult to follow completey, but coupled with the other videos it paints a picture of someone with issues.
Something happened, none of us know what, when the cyclist was level with the van waiting for the car to get parked.
Then the cyclist carried on and I don't think he was being chased. He wasn't looking round or doing anything until he passed the zebra crossing. Then he swung out to pass the parked cars. He may or may not have indicated, or checked what was behind, the van driver should probably have anticipated this anyway.
The van driver then tries to overtake, whether he should or not is probably another discussion. He passes but the cyclist could have been making all sorts of gestures, he didn't seem happy about being overtaken and going on his reaction when the van pulled in I would suggest he had already decided to blow his horn, shout and wave.
I'm assertive when I ride and when I drive, but having driven for 30years and covered over 600,000 miles in the last 20years, there comes a point when you realise that you get to your destination in a much better mood, and in one piece if you use your energy to read the road and ride/drive assertively or defensively depending on the situation.
The cyclist in the video is assertive and aggressive from the start. At the point where he could have been defensive he was offensive.
The video in isolation is difficult to follow completey, but coupled with the other videos it paints a picture of someone with issues.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I pretty much agree with your assessment except I'd point out that the cyclist definitely checked twice, and he pulled out gradually. Indicating probably wasn't necessary.
Watching the video, I would have pretty much done everything the same way, although I would have hung back further from the reversing car, and wouldn't have used the horn. I do think the van driver shouldn't have overtaken there, and pulled in too sharply, so I wouldn't have been happy about that at all.
I'm done watching the video, don't want to see it again. I think we can both agree that you can be assertive and curteous at the same time.
Stay safe
I pretty much agree with your assessment except I'd point out that the cyclist definitely checked twice, and he pulled out gradually. Indicating probably wasn't necessary.
Watching the video, I would have pretty much done everything the same way, although I would have hung back further from the reversing car, and wouldn't have used the horn. I do think the van driver shouldn't have overtaken there, and pulled in too sharply, so I wouldn't have been happy about that at all.
I'm done watching the video, don't want to see it again. I think we can both agree that you can be assertive and curteous at the same time.
Stay safe
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I think you might have gotten confused actually. This thread was about one particular DRIVER who has some serious anger issues. Then you decided a number of things that are impossible to tell from the posted video and gave you best effort to change it into a thread about a cyclist with serious anger issues.
The cyclist is question may have a vendetta against vehicle drivers, which would be petty and a waste of time. However, this is irrelevant. In the particular video posted, the cyclist was almost knocked off his bicycle by the van and then attacked. Regardless of the context, violent assault is wrong. However it is something that normal cyclists have to deal with on a fairly regular basis. I have had rocks and bottles thrown at me, been deliberately cut off, been forced off the road, had my rear wheel bumped at lights, etc. And many cyclists have experienced the same. Cyclists may often have a very anti-car attitude, but they are not the ones killing and injuring car drivers. A bit of healthy paranoia is what keeps us alive. And you're damned right I'm going to hold up traffic on a narrow road where there isn't room to overtake. And you're damned right I know better than a car driver when it is too narrow. Cyclists are the most physically vulnerable vehicles on the road and controlling the traffic around them is the best way to keep safe.
> This thread is about one particular cyclist who has some serious anger issues.
I think you might have gotten confused actually. This thread was about one particular DRIVER who has some serious anger issues. Then you decided a number of things that are impossible to tell from the posted video and gave you best effort to change it into a thread about a cyclist with serious anger issues.
The cyclist is question may have a vendetta against vehicle drivers, which would be petty and a waste of time. However, this is irrelevant. In the particular video posted, the cyclist was almost knocked off his bicycle by the van and then attacked. Regardless of the context, violent assault is wrong. However it is something that normal cyclists have to deal with on a fairly regular basis. I have had rocks and bottles thrown at me, been deliberately cut off, been forced off the road, had my rear wheel bumped at lights, etc. And many cyclists have experienced the same. Cyclists may often have a very anti-car attitude, but they are not the ones killing and injuring car drivers. A bit of healthy paranoia is what keeps us alive. And you're damned right I'm going to hold up traffic on a narrow road where there isn't room to overtake. And you're damned right I know better than a car driver when it is too narrow. Cyclists are the most physically vulnerable vehicles on the road and controlling the traffic around them is the best way to keep safe.
In reply to Bob_the_Builder:
I thought it was a video of two idiots winding each other up until one of them snapped.
> (In reply to DancingOnRock)
>
> [...]
>
> I think you might have gotten confused actually. This thread was about one particular DRIVER who has some serious anger issues. Then you decided a number of things that are impossible to tell from the posted video and gave you best effort to change it into a thread about a cyclist with serious anger issues.
>
>
> [...]
>
> I think you might have gotten confused actually. This thread was about one particular DRIVER who has some serious anger issues. Then you decided a number of things that are impossible to tell from the posted video and gave you best effort to change it into a thread about a cyclist with serious anger issues.
>
I thought it was a video of two idiots winding each other up until one of them snapped.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...