This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
No doubt this story will lead to the usual glut of phone-ins demanding cycling be banned, unlike this far more familiar story
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-34581681
No doubt this story will lead to the usual glut of phone-ins demanding cycling be banned, unlike this far more familiar story
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-34581681
8
4
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Motorist irritates cyclist, cyclist irritates motorist in revenge and so it goes on.
It's a vicious cycle.
Motorist irritates cyclist, cyclist irritates motorist in revenge and so it goes on.
It's a vicious cycle.
10
5
2
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Not really. Even if they were driving like a nob that should result in inviting them to go forth and procreate or a note to the cops. Not smashing the window only possible exception would be if they did hit the cyclist and it was an instinctive response (still be wrong but somewhat understandable) which there is no evidence for.
> Not condoning it for a moment but there has to be two sides to this.
Not really. Even if they were driving like a nob that should result in inviting them to go forth and procreate or a note to the cops. Not smashing the window only possible exception would be if they did hit the cyclist and it was an instinctive response (still be wrong but somewhat understandable) which there is no evidence for.
Post edited at 19:30
1
2
In reply to KevinD:
What are you on about? Something made the cyclist angry enough to smash the window, what ever it was would be the other side to this. Unless maybe you think the cyclist was just cycling along and decided for no reason whatsoever to smash a car window. Like I said I'm not condoning it for a moment and whatever the cyclists reason they are not justified in thier actions at all but something made them smash the window.
What are you on about? Something made the cyclist angry enough to smash the window, what ever it was would be the other side to this. Unless maybe you think the cyclist was just cycling along and decided for no reason whatsoever to smash a car window. Like I said I'm not condoning it for a moment and whatever the cyclists reason they are not justified in thier actions at all but something made them smash the window.
10
3
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Interestingly the cycle lobby isn't too keen on hearing the other side when the cyclist is the potential victim. Strange that.
> Not condoning it for a moment but there has to be two sides to this.
Interestingly the cycle lobby isn't too keen on hearing the other side when the cyclist is the potential victim. Strange that.
5
7
6
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
And what do you think would warrant such anger and aggression? Is this level of violence acceptable and if so would that give a driver the right to assault a cyclist as they saw fit?
> Something made the cyclist angry enough to smash the window
And what do you think would warrant such anger and aggression? Is this level of violence acceptable and if so would that give a driver the right to assault a cyclist as they saw fit?
3
5
In reply to Indy:
I haven't got a clue what would warrant such anger and aggression. Shall I say it again - I'm not condoning it for a second. I think you're getting forum rage!
> And what do you think would warrant such anger and aggression? Is this level of violence acceptable and if so would that give a driver the right to assault a cyclist as they saw fit?
I haven't got a clue what would warrant such anger and aggression. Shall I say it again - I'm not condoning it for a second. I think you're getting forum rage!
4
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
"... the [male] cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail."
Because he's an areshole.
> .... something made them smash the window.
"... the [male] cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail."
Because he's an areshole.
3
In reply to Indy:
How do you come to that conclusion ?
I'm merely suggesting the attention given to this story is already disproportionate, and is likely to get worse
> Victim blaming are we?
How do you come to that conclusion ?
I'm merely suggesting the attention given to this story is already disproportionate, and is likely to get worse
In reply to Lusk:
Ah yes, but also:
"Miss Gautama said the cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail and was wearing a bright yellow jacket, see-through cycling glasses, and black cycling shorts."
See-through glasses. Whatever will they think of next?
> "... the [male] cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail."
> Because he's an areshole.
Ah yes, but also:
"Miss Gautama said the cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail and was wearing a bright yellow jacket, see-through cycling glasses, and black cycling shorts."
See-through glasses. Whatever will they think of next?
16
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Can't agree Chris. The driver was a learner and a baby was showered with broken glass.
Go on, condemn the cyclist in this case. It won't hurt, it won't change the reality that cyclists are far more sinned against than sinners, and it will stop you looking like a one-eyed condoner of the indefensible....
Can't agree Chris. The driver was a learner and a baby was showered with broken glass.
Go on, condemn the cyclist in this case. It won't hurt, it won't change the reality that cyclists are far more sinned against than sinners, and it will stop you looking like a one-eyed condoner of the indefensible....
8
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I can condemn the cyclist for not looking in the car first. A driver tried to kill me once. When I saw him stopped at the lights I went to try to kill him back but passed up on the opportunity when I saw a kid sat on the back seat. Put it down to experience, bit me lip and rode off.
Wally
> Can't agree Chris. The driver was a learner and a baby was showered with broken glass.
> Go on, condemn the cyclist in this case. It won't hurt, it won't change the reality that cyclists are far more sinned against than sinners, and it will stop you looking like a one-eyed condoner of the indefensible....
I can condemn the cyclist for not looking in the car first. A driver tried to kill me once. When I saw him stopped at the lights I went to try to kill him back but passed up on the opportunity when I saw a kid sat on the back seat. Put it down to experience, bit me lip and rode off.
Wally
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Of course I condemn the cyclist, lots of arseholes ride bikes, and I would never suggest that merely riding a bike makes you a saint.
But I'm currently in menorca and that story was on the BBC. Do you really think that stories where the cyclist is the victim get the same attention as those where they are the perpetrator?
Of course I condemn the cyclist, lots of arseholes ride bikes, and I would never suggest that merely riding a bike makes you a saint.
But I'm currently in menorca and that story was on the BBC. Do you really think that stories where the cyclist is the victim get the same attention as those where they are the perpetrator?
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's a man bites dog story Chris- what do you expect. And that's wrong, you're right that much worse happening to cyclists goes under the radar because it's common.
You just seemed to go on the counter attack very quickly- that car drivers don't have a monopoly on arseholes on the road is worth acknowledging, even if numerically the ones behind a steering wheel are still by far the commonest. ..
Cheers
Gregor
It's a man bites dog story Chris- what do you expect. And that's wrong, you're right that much worse happening to cyclists goes under the radar because it's common.
You just seemed to go on the counter attack very quickly- that car drivers don't have a monopoly on arseholes on the road is worth acknowledging, even if numerically the ones behind a steering wheel are still by far the commonest. ..
Cheers
Gregor
1
1
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Some random internet gobshite!
> Who's said the 'cycle lobby' isn't keen on hearing the other side?
Some random internet gobshite!
3
2
In reply to Bogwalloper:
Yes it's that aspect ratio that probably gets the media interested too. Suspect if it had been a man of the same age as the cyclist in the car it wouldn't have been picked up to the same extent.
Unless someone did actually get killed. ..!
Yes it's that aspect ratio that probably gets the media interested too. Suspect if it had been a man of the same age as the cyclist in the car it wouldn't have been picked up to the same extent.
Unless someone did actually get killed. ..!
1
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I think you and Chris are both right.
but when a motorist f*cks up a cyclist gets injured or killed. When I cyclist f*cks up a window gets smashed.
In any case and in my humble opinion motorist on cyclist rr incidents outweigh cyclist on motorist or pedestrian rr incidents about 100 to 1.
Wally
I think you and Chris are both right.
but when a motorist f*cks up a cyclist gets injured or killed. When I cyclist f*cks up a window gets smashed.
In any case and in my humble opinion motorist on cyclist rr incidents outweigh cyclist on motorist or pedestrian rr incidents about 100 to 1.
Wally
1
6
In reply to The New NickB:
Yup. Just the standard moron who has difficult understanding that cyclists arent a single group. The scary thing is those sort of people get given car licences.
> Some random internet gobshite!
Yup. Just the standard moron who has difficult understanding that cyclists arent a single group. The scary thing is those sort of people get given car licences.
2
2
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
I am pointing out that there arent really two sides to it. At best both sides were idiots.
The problem with the two sides argument is you then get morons ranting about all cyclists being the same.
> What are you on about?
I am pointing out that there arent really two sides to it. At best both sides were idiots.
The problem with the two sides argument is you then get morons ranting about all cyclists being the same.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
This is the bit I have least sympathy for. Unless it was accompanied by saying "i know i did x wrong and i wont do it again" it comes across as a lazy excuse from someone who has no interest in improving.
> Can't agree Chris. The driver was a learner
This is the bit I have least sympathy for. Unless it was accompanied by saying "i know i did x wrong and i wont do it again" it comes across as a lazy excuse from someone who has no interest in improving.
2
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
As I say I'm out in menorca, just catching up on the day's news, and whilst the tragedy in Sheffield appeared in my Twitter feed, this incident was on the BBC news, and on a UKC thread. Yep man bites dog. But every time one of these stories gets disproportionate coverage (and I take it you accept that), it gives ammunition to the anti-cycling lobby, and distracts from the appalling death toll on our roads.
As I say I'm out in menorca, just catching up on the day's news, and whilst the tragedy in Sheffield appeared in my Twitter feed, this incident was on the BBC news, and on a UKC thread. Yep man bites dog. But every time one of these stories gets disproportionate coverage (and I take it you accept that), it gives ammunition to the anti-cycling lobby, and distracts from the appalling death toll on our roads.
1
In reply to KevinD:
Oddly enough, on the only occasion I rode in London, about the only driver to give me more than a foot when they passed me, was a learner !
Oddly enough, on the only occasion I rode in London, about the only driver to give me more than a foot when they passed me, was a learner !
In reply to KevinD:
So you think the cyclist smashed the window for no reason whatsover? There are always two sides to any argument, one or both sides might be as wrong as the other but there will still be two sides.
> I am pointing out that there arent really two sides to it. At best both sides were idiots.
> The problem with the two sides argument is you then get morons ranting about all cyclists being the same.
So you think the cyclist smashed the window for no reason whatsover? There are always two sides to any argument, one or both sides might be as wrong as the other but there will still be two sides.
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Doesnt matter his reason. Blokes a nob for doing so. Hence the two sides really doesnt apply and allows the frothers to rant and rave about cyclists lobby, whatever the f*ck that is.
> So you think the cyclist smashed the window for no reason whatsover?
Doesnt matter his reason. Blokes a nob for doing so. Hence the two sides really doesnt apply and allows the frothers to rant and rave about cyclists lobby, whatever the f*ck that is.
3
1
In reply to Lusk:
Ronnie Pickering would have smashed his own window....
> Ronnie Pickering would have sorted this cyclist out
Ronnie Pickering would have smashed his own window....
1
1
In reply to Chris Harris:
I thought it was an apt description - cycling glasses for eye protection without a sunglasses tint, as opposed to proscription glasses, sunglasses or tinted cycling glasses.
> See-through glasses. Whatever will they think of next?
I thought it was an apt description - cycling glasses for eye protection without a sunglasses tint, as opposed to proscription glasses, sunglasses or tinted cycling glasses.
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Pfft. As everyone else said, this is one side of a story. So I'll give a hypothetical other side to the story:
1) If the car was stationary when the cyclist passed (probably slowly), there was no need to leave much space. Leaving the same amount of space when both are moving and at speed would be inconsiderate and dangerous.
2) I'll eat my hat if that polite quote is what she actually said. And as the car was passing and both were travelling at a speed, I'd guess the cyclist probably only heard one or two words. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the sweary ones.
3) If she clipped the cyclist with her wing mirror as she passed, you can bet your bottom dollar she didn't admit to that during any statements.
4) Did the cyclist bang on the roof of the car as he passed or did this just get made up as by the driver to make it appear as though the cyclist was first at fault in the incident (without this, she started it when she leaned out the window and shouted abuse at the cyclist).
5) Did the entire incident start further back up the road when the driver cut up the cyclist without even realising it?
6) Was the cyclist swinging his lock? Or did she just have a flawed window that broke when it was thumped?
So, yes, it does seem like the cyclist was suffering from road rage. But, as with all witness testimony, don't believe a single word of it.
Credit to the BBC though that they did at least manage to put "alleged" right near the start.
Edit: Oops, it was her husband driving, amend she to he etc. above.
Pfft. As everyone else said, this is one side of a story. So I'll give a hypothetical other side to the story:
1) If the car was stationary when the cyclist passed (probably slowly), there was no need to leave much space. Leaving the same amount of space when both are moving and at speed would be inconsiderate and dangerous.
2) I'll eat my hat if that polite quote is what she actually said. And as the car was passing and both were travelling at a speed, I'd guess the cyclist probably only heard one or two words. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the sweary ones.
3) If she clipped the cyclist with her wing mirror as she passed, you can bet your bottom dollar she didn't admit to that during any statements.
4) Did the cyclist bang on the roof of the car as he passed or did this just get made up as by the driver to make it appear as though the cyclist was first at fault in the incident (without this, she started it when she leaned out the window and shouted abuse at the cyclist).
5) Did the entire incident start further back up the road when the driver cut up the cyclist without even realising it?
6) Was the cyclist swinging his lock? Or did she just have a flawed window that broke when it was thumped?
So, yes, it does seem like the cyclist was suffering from road rage. But, as with all witness testimony, don't believe a single word of it.
Credit to the BBC though that they did at least manage to put "alleged" right near the start.
Edit: Oops, it was her husband driving, amend she to he etc. above.
Post edited at 00:22
4
4
In reply to henwardian:
I agree with your point about there being two sides to this story but smashing a car window isn't necessarily trivial
youtube.com/watch?v=L91_K-s4pMM&
I have had a few run ins with cars that get too close in slow moving traffic and slapping the side of the car is usually enough to make your position on the road absolutely clear. There is certainly no need to hit the window so hard you smash it regardless of what the driver may have said or done. Life is too short and cyclists are at a default fleshy disadvantage in any conflict with someone wearing a car for body amour.
> Pfft. As everyone else said, this is one side of a story. So I'll give a hypothetical other side to the story:
I agree with your point about there being two sides to this story but smashing a car window isn't necessarily trivial
youtube.com/watch?v=L91_K-s4pMM&
I have had a few run ins with cars that get too close in slow moving traffic and slapping the side of the car is usually enough to make your position on the road absolutely clear. There is certainly no need to hit the window so hard you smash it regardless of what the driver may have said or done. Life is too short and cyclists are at a default fleshy disadvantage in any conflict with someone wearing a car for body amour.
In reply to KevinD:
True. The cyclist is a nutter and deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Still, I can't help but question why you'd choose to have a baby in the car whilst effectively giving a lesson to a learner driver.
> Doesnt matter his reason. Blokes a nob for doing so. Hence the two sides really doesnt apply and allows the frothers to rant and rave about cyclists lobby, whatever the f*ck that is.
True. The cyclist is a nutter and deserves to have the book thrown at him.
Still, I can't help but question why you'd choose to have a baby in the car whilst effectively giving a lesson to a learner driver.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Depends on many things - the day before sitting the test - probably OK, the first time behind the wheel - probably not
> True. The cyclist is a nutter and deserves to have the book thrown at him.
+1> Still, I can't help but question why you'd choose to have a baby in the car whilst effectively giving a lesson to a learner driver.
Depends on many things - the day before sitting the test - probably OK, the first time behind the wheel - probably not
2
In reply to henwardian:
If there was a "driver thumps cyclist" post on here, and someone made up an "other side of the story" that hypothesised all sorts of things the cyclist may have done wrong, that their post would have met with a vociferous outpouring of vitriol from various quarters... It'd probably - and fairly - include the words "victim blaming"
> Pfft. As everyone else said, this is one side of a story. So I'll give a hypothetical other side to the story:
If there was a "driver thumps cyclist" post on here, and someone made up an "other side of the story" that hypothesised all sorts of things the cyclist may have done wrong, that their post would have met with a vociferous outpouring of vitriol from various quarters... It'd probably - and fairly - include the words "victim blaming"
6
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I would prefer to see "L" cars to be banned during the rush hour in London.
I mean if you really want to learn to drive 5 PM rush hour in London is a very bad idea.
I must admit I had temptation to do same thing as the cyclist in article. But so far able to restrict myself.
At same time driving on a country lane after mamil pack blocking the way makes me to wish it would have been legal to ram them!
Hatred is natural. Just like love. And we can show or restrict it.
I am glad the cyclist made damage only to the car, not the people. That lock could have landed on her skull..
I would prefer to see "L" cars to be banned during the rush hour in London.
I mean if you really want to learn to drive 5 PM rush hour in London is a very bad idea.
I must admit I had temptation to do same thing as the cyclist in article. But so far able to restrict myself.
At same time driving on a country lane after mamil pack blocking the way makes me to wish it would have been legal to ram them!
Hatred is natural. Just like love. And we can show or restrict it.
I am glad the cyclist made damage only to the car, not the people. That lock could have landed on her skull..
Post edited at 10:23
3
In reply to ByEek:
+1. I've banged on the side of a car a couple of times, most recently a couple of weeks ago when a car cut straight across the the cycle lane I was in and I nearly went in the side of the car, but I've never damaged one - although I've been tempted to, a couple of times, to give the driver a reminder to look out for cyclists.
> I have had a few run ins with cars that get too close in slow moving traffic and slapping the side of the car is usually enough to make your position on the road absolutely clear. There is certainly no need to hit the window so hard you smash it regardless of what the driver may have said or done. Life is too short and cyclists are at a default fleshy disadvantage in any conflict with someone wearing a car for body amour.
+1. I've banged on the side of a car a couple of times, most recently a couple of weeks ago when a car cut straight across the the cycle lane I was in and I nearly went in the side of the car, but I've never damaged one - although I've been tempted to, a couple of times, to give the driver a reminder to look out for cyclists.
In reply to gethin_allen:
I'm a motorist and a cyclist and its killing me !
> Motorist irritates cyclist, cyclist irritates motorist in revenge and so it goes on.
> It's a vicious cycle.
I'm a motorist and a cyclist and its killing me !
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Ditto. But as a "responsible cyclist" one has to accept that for the greater good making a point through destruction is not the way forward!
> although I've been tempted to, a couple of times, to give the driver a reminder to look out for cyclists.
Ditto. But as a "responsible cyclist" one has to accept that for the greater good making a point through destruction is not the way forward!
3
In reply to ByEek:
Also, rage is cumulative - it may be that the person/people who really behaved badly were not the ones who ended up being lashed out at, which isn't really fair on them
> one has to accept that for the greater good making a point through destruction is not the way forward!
Also, rage is cumulative - it may be that the person/people who really behaved badly were not the ones who ended up being lashed out at, which isn't really fair on them
In reply to nufkin:
Blonde hair in a pony tail, see-through glasses, wearing a yellow top..................
IT'S Laurent Fignon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Blonde hair in a pony tail, see-through glasses, wearing a yellow top..................
IT'S Laurent Fignon!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
In reply to Martin not maisie:
anyone else think it`s not good that an unqualified person can take a learner out on to a public road . I know it`s been the case for years but the roads are a lot busier now . maybe time for a change in the law.
anyone else think it`s not good that an unqualified person can take a learner out on to a public road . I know it`s been the case for years but the roads are a lot busier now . maybe time for a change in the law.
1
1
In reply to tim000:
I'm not aware that there is an issue, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?
> anyone else think it`s not good that an unqualified person can take a learner out on to a public road . I know it`s been the case for years but the roads are a lot busier now . maybe time for a change in the law.
I'm not aware that there is an issue, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?
In reply to tim000:
By "unqualified", you mean "over 21, qualified to drive that type of vehicle and have held a full EU driving licence for over 3 years"?
I helped teach my little sister to drive when I was 21, but I'll agree the "3 years" bit leaves a potential hole of actual driving experience.
By "unqualified", you mean "over 21, qualified to drive that type of vehicle and have held a full EU driving licence for over 3 years"?
I helped teach my little sister to drive when I was 21, but I'll agree the "3 years" bit leaves a potential hole of actual driving experience.
I think this on a daily basis but generally, life would be better and easier if everyone were to...
calm the f*ck down
calm the f*ck down
3
In reply to ByEek:
Yeah, I was thinking of that exact clip when I was writing about the car window. That is precisely what makes me surprised that it smashed when being hit, even if it was with a padlock. Concordantly, I suggested that maybe the window already had a crack or fracture.
Maybe it didn't have a weakness and the cyclist was swinging the lock with a force born from incensed rage. Only one or two people know for sure.
In reply to wintertree:
I think I get your meaning, though I can't read that in any way that it actually makes sense.
I often play devils advocate; if the story were the other way around, there is every chance I might reply in exactly the same way. My goal isn't to blame the victim but to dimly illuminate all the stark blacks and whites that we love to cling to, such that I welcome everyone to the infinite world of greys where there is no right and wrong and any action or reaction could be justified from a certain point of view.
This story also manages to tick several boxes, any one of which would make me despise it for the written manure it is:
- One sided story with no attempt at balance.
- Non-news story (it is in no way noteworthy).
- Attempt to tar one particular group of people with the actions of an individual or small number of people.
Yeah, I was thinking of that exact clip when I was writing about the car window. That is precisely what makes me surprised that it smashed when being hit, even if it was with a padlock. Concordantly, I suggested that maybe the window already had a crack or fracture.
Maybe it didn't have a weakness and the cyclist was swinging the lock with a force born from incensed rage. Only one or two people know for sure.
In reply to wintertree:
> If there was a "driver thumps cyclist" post on here, and someone made up an "other side of the story" that hypothesised all sorts of things the cyclist may have done wrong, that their post would have met with a vociferous outpouring of vitriol from various quarters... It'd probably - and fairly - include the words "victim blaming"
I think I get your meaning, though I can't read that in any way that it actually makes sense.
I often play devils advocate; if the story were the other way around, there is every chance I might reply in exactly the same way. My goal isn't to blame the victim but to dimly illuminate all the stark blacks and whites that we love to cling to, such that I welcome everyone to the infinite world of greys where there is no right and wrong and any action or reaction could be justified from a certain point of view.
This story also manages to tick several boxes, any one of which would make me despise it for the written manure it is:
- One sided story with no attempt at balance.
- Non-news story (it is in no way noteworthy).
- Attempt to tar one particular group of people with the actions of an individual or small number of people.
1
In reply to henwardian:
Come on then, entertain us: what convoluted logic would allow you to get to the position that stoving a car window in and showering a baby with broken glass is not wrong. What 'certain point of view' justifies it?
There's playing devils asvocate and then there's defending the indefensible. You're getting uncomfortably close to the latter.
Come on then, entertain us: what convoluted logic would allow you to get to the position that stoving a car window in and showering a baby with broken glass is not wrong. What 'certain point of view' justifies it?
There's playing devils asvocate and then there's defending the indefensible. You're getting uncomfortably close to the latter.
4
1
In reply to henwardian:
1. Unless they find the cyclist or other witnesses then it's only going to be one-sided. The story is given weight by the glass/baby combination, without which it would not have registered. Our daily news is constantly filled with unbalanced views as it is just about impossible either to get a genuine balanced view or to make a correct assessment of what "balanced" actually means. Perhaps the cyclist in question will hand himself in to Police and clear the whole matter up.
2. Compared with all the celebrity gossip that is presented to us as "news" this is on a different scale. It could well be that there is an individual out there who has anger management problems, scant disregard for the wellbeing of a baby and might do this again. This certainly is news, particularly at a local level. If you consider yourself to be the final word on what is or what is not news then you are arrogant in the extreme. That you use this opinion to try to help "win" your argument is just daft.
3. WRONG. There is nothing whatsoever in the article that attempts to vilify cyclists as a population. In fact the driver suggests that maybe they drove a bit too close to the cyclist. What I see is a road rage incident which involved putting a baby's life in danger from someone who has not been apprehended. The stronger the description the better. The article talks about cyclist - singular, not cyclists - plural.
> - One sided story with no attempt at balance.
> - Non-news story (it is in no way noteworthy).
> - Attempt to tar one particular group of people with the actions of an individual or small number of people.
1. Unless they find the cyclist or other witnesses then it's only going to be one-sided. The story is given weight by the glass/baby combination, without which it would not have registered. Our daily news is constantly filled with unbalanced views as it is just about impossible either to get a genuine balanced view or to make a correct assessment of what "balanced" actually means. Perhaps the cyclist in question will hand himself in to Police and clear the whole matter up.
2. Compared with all the celebrity gossip that is presented to us as "news" this is on a different scale. It could well be that there is an individual out there who has anger management problems, scant disregard for the wellbeing of a baby and might do this again. This certainly is news, particularly at a local level. If you consider yourself to be the final word on what is or what is not news then you are arrogant in the extreme. That you use this opinion to try to help "win" your argument is just daft.
3. WRONG. There is nothing whatsoever in the article that attempts to vilify cyclists as a population. In fact the driver suggests that maybe they drove a bit too close to the cyclist. What I see is a road rage incident which involved putting a baby's life in danger from someone who has not been apprehended. The stronger the description the better. The article talks about cyclist - singular, not cyclists - plural.
7
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Cyclin shd be banned innit! I find it joke bruv that dem nipple flauntin fiffi mans fink dere boss innit!! Lmao!!
I merked up one last week innit pon me German whip! Ones apple became such a bind to chew, I simply dispatched him with it, one head shot and the poor old boy went down like a ton of bricks.
Cyclin shd be banned innit! I find it joke bruv that dem nipple flauntin fiffi mans fink dere boss innit!! Lmao!!
I merked up one last week innit pon me German whip! Ones apple became such a bind to chew, I simply dispatched him with it, one head shot and the poor old boy went down like a ton of bricks.
3
2
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
There could be but there don't have to be. Angry bellends don't just drive.
jk
> Not condoning it for a moment but there has to be two sides to this.
There could be but there don't have to be. Angry bellends don't just drive.
jk
1
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Article about a specific instance of road rage degenerates into a generalised argument about motorists vs. cyclists.
So far, so internet.
Article about a specific instance of road rage degenerates into a generalised argument about motorists vs. cyclists.
So far, so internet.
2
In reply to henwardian:
So what you are saying is that you are a troll, out to elicit a reaction rather that to voice an opinion, and that we should therefore disregard every word you say.
> I often play devils advocate; if the story were the other way around, there is every chance I might reply in exactly the same way.
So what you are saying is that you are a troll, out to elicit a reaction rather that to voice an opinion, and that we should therefore disregard every word you say.
In reply to faffergotgunz:
Quite excellent, my dear chap. Innit.
But I'm afraid you lose points for admitting to possession of a Mercedes: when one is winging the pedalling hoi polloi, only a Jag will do.
Quite excellent, my dear chap. Innit.
But I'm afraid you lose points for admitting to possession of a Mercedes: when one is winging the pedalling hoi polloi, only a Jag will do.
In reply to Byronius Maximus:
But to be fair, nobody could have predicted that.
> Article about a specific instance of road rage degenerates into a generalised argument about motorists vs. cyclists.
But to be fair, nobody could have predicted that.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Was the baby wearing a helmet and hi-vis?
> Come on then, entertain us: what convoluted logic would allow you to get to the position that stoving a car window in and showering a baby with broken glass is not wrong. What 'certain point of view' justifies it?
Was the baby wearing a helmet and hi-vis?
2
In reply to henwardian:
I can tell you from personal experience that it is rather easier than you think to break a side window with quite modest force from a shoe, having twice escaped from overturned cars by this method when the windows and doors could not be opened.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is rather easier than you think to break a side window with quite modest force from a shoe, having twice escaped from overturned cars by this method when the windows and doors could not be opened.
In reply to wercat:
You've twice found yourself needing to kick your way out of overturned cars? You might need to re-think some of your lifestyle choices.
> I can tell you from personal experience that it is rather easier than you think to break a side window with quite modest force from a shoe, having twice escaped from overturned cars by this method when the windows and doors could not be opened.
You've twice found yourself needing to kick your way out of overturned cars? You might need to re-think some of your lifestyle choices.
6
In reply to LastBoyScout:
so you think being over 21 and been a driver for 3 years is adequate to take a learner out in a car on the public roads? I don't.
so you think being over 21 and been a driver for 3 years is adequate to take a learner out in a car on the public roads? I don't.
1
1
In reply to tim000:
The law disagrees with you. The fact that it hasn't been changed for years suggests there isn't a problem.
> so you think being over 21 and been a driver for 3 years is adequate to take a learner out in a car on the public roads? I don't.
The law disagrees with you. The fact that it hasn't been changed for years suggests there isn't a problem.
1
1
I can't even pretend to know what might warrant such outrage and animosity. Might I say it again - I'm not approving it for a brief moment. I believe you're getting discussion rage.
In reply to tim000:
Based exactly on what?
There are people aged 40 and who have been driving for 20 years that I wouldn't want to be taking learners out in a car on the public roads.
> so you think being over 21 and been a driver for 3 years is adequate to take a learner out in a car on the public roads? I don't.
Based exactly on what?
There are people aged 40 and who have been driving for 20 years that I wouldn't want to be taking learners out in a car on the public roads.
In reply to Rampikino:
Don't worry, soon enough nobody will be driving...
> There are people aged 40 and who have been driving for 20 years that I wouldn't want to be taking learners out in a car on the public roads.
Don't worry, soon enough nobody will be driving...
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Are you allowed passengers if you've got L plates? Besides the instructor.
Are you allowed passengers if you've got L plates? Besides the instructor.
In reply to SiGregory:
Yes, Croydon was the model for Morris's criminal area but you can only stretch this so far.
> Are you allowed passengers if you've got L plates? Besides the instructor.
Yes, Croydon was the model for Morris's criminal area but you can only stretch this so far.
In reply to Removed UserBwox:
indeed, on the first occasion which happened on the road to the Torridon disco from Shieldaig in the early hours of a February morning in 1985 I had spent a lot of time worrying that the seatbelt in the front passenger seat didn't work - as the driver announced we were going off the road I wondered what it would be like to go through the windscreen and "braced" for impact .... Those were Kishorn nights!
indeed, on the first occasion which happened on the road to the Torridon disco from Shieldaig in the early hours of a February morning in 1985 I had spent a lot of time worrying that the seatbelt in the front passenger seat didn't work - as the driver announced we were going off the road I wondered what it would be like to go through the windscreen and "braced" for impact .... Those were Kishorn nights!
As a cyclist and car driver it seems that both sides are getting worse and worse for this. On my way home from uni this evening (with full lights and his vis on) a car driver nearly t-boned me when they fulled out without looking properly. They then decided to race after me, pull me over, hurl abuse and then spit in my face. Disgraceful how some people treat other road users now
1
In reply to SteveJC94:
Steve
You HAVE to report that; don't just chalk it up to the way of things - it had nothing to do with modern times or mores and everything to do with angry nutters who need to be dealt with.
Steve
You HAVE to report that; don't just chalk it up to the way of things - it had nothing to do with modern times or mores and everything to do with angry nutters who need to be dealt with.
4
In reply to Martin not maisie:
Sounds like a good candidate for a Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 warning:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
Spitting in the face is probably common assault
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q145.htm
Sounds like a good candidate for a Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 warning:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59
Spitting in the face is probably common assault
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q145.htm
In reply to captain paranoia:
I've been to the police about it but I didn't manage to get a number plate so unfortunately there's not much they can do about it. Hopefully it never happens again!
I've been to the police about it but I didn't manage to get a number plate so unfortunately there's not much they can do about it. Hopefully it never happens again!
In reply to tim000:
To answer questions like this we could look to the evidence rather than opinion. Pg5 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2... suggests even lumping inexperienced drivers in with learners that group is not the dominant cause of accidents by a long stretch let alone of serious accidents.
Personally I think the existing system of supervised learning is quite reasonable.
jk
> so you think being over 21 and been a driver for 3 years is adequate to take a learner out in a car on the public roads? I don't.
To answer questions like this we could look to the evidence rather than opinion. Pg5 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2... suggests even lumping inexperienced drivers in with learners that group is not the dominant cause of accidents by a long stretch let alone of serious accidents.
Personally I think the existing system of supervised learning is quite reasonable.
jk
In reply to SteveJC94:
Ah, no...
The one time I've been involved in it, I stopped at the side of the road immediately after the incident, and rang the police, having taken the number. Some bloke came up to me as I was on the phone (I suspect one of the offending carful of yobs), but I told him to go away; he did... They sent a PC to my workplace the next day to get a statement off me, and seemed very keen to do something, and very supportive of me ringing in the complaint. I did wonder whether the vehicle was 'known to them'...
> I've been to the police about it but I didn't manage to get a number plate so unfortunately there's not much they can do about it.
Ah, no...
The one time I've been involved in it, I stopped at the side of the road immediately after the incident, and rang the police, having taken the number. Some bloke came up to me as I was on the phone (I suspect one of the offending carful of yobs), but I told him to go away; he did... They sent a PC to my workplace the next day to get a statement off me, and seemed very keen to do something, and very supportive of me ringing in the complaint. I did wonder whether the vehicle was 'known to them'...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...