# 'Attacked' cyclist sought by Essex Police



## mod (Jan 16, 2015)

Surely the cyclist posted this video online so shouldn't be too hard to track him down?

Here's hoping the driver get done by the police anyway...would love to see his face when he sees this video on the BBC News site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30851989


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 16, 2015)

Taylor Landscaping, a company based in Billericay need to review how their employees behave when driving their vans.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jan 16, 2015)

go directly to jail, do not pass go...


----------



## shaman75 (Jan 16, 2015)

The rider put the video up but then removed it.  Someone else ripped it before that happened and uploaded it, so it still exists.



A comment on the video says the original uploader has closed their account and is now speaking to Police.


----------



## bemused (Jan 16, 2015)

Odd that he took the effort to post it on youtube rather than speak to the police.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2015)

Chilli.s said:


> Taylor Landscaping, a company based in Billericay need to review how their employees behave when driving their vans.


I'm sure some training company will be able to put on a £5000 a day seminar for them, entitled 'Not Knocking Cyclists of Their Bike and Punching Them'.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2015)

bemused said:


> Odd that he took the effort to post it on youtube rather than speak to the police.



Not really, given the usual attitude of the police to this sort of thing.


----------



## bemused (Jan 16, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I'm sure some training company will be able to put on a £5000 a day seminar for them, entitled 'Not Knocking Cyclists of Their Bike and Punching Them'.



Followed by the advanced course - 'cover your tracks - how to spot a camera'


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 16, 2015)

Nice to see a bit more for context. Isn't using a car to push someone over assault with a weapon?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 16, 2015)

Why the quote marks in the thread title? There's no ambiguity.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 16, 2015)

not-bono-ever said:


> go directly to jail, do not pass go...



You can kill a cyclist and still avoid jail in this country.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2015)

Crispy said:


> Why the quote marks in the thread title? There's no ambiguity.


It was in the bbc headline, but yes, no obvious ambiguity about what happened.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

Newspaper reporting around incidents like these often really boils my piss.  The BBC article linked to in OP states that the cyclist "appears" to have been knocked of his bike and assaulted.  There's no fucking "appears" about it.

Not to mention the whole "bike colliding with a van" business that appears every time a journalist reports on a collision.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2015)

Now being reported the bloke has been suspended by the company and has 'voluntarily attended a police station'.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 16, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Newspaper reporting around incidents like these often really boils my piss.  The BBC article linked to in OP states that the cyclist "appears" to have been knocked of his bike and assaulted.  There's no fucking "appears" about it.
> 
> Not to mention the whole "bike colliding with a van" business that appears every time a journalist reports on a collision.


It would be for legal reason.  They could get into serious trouble if they appeared to be apportioning blame before an incident has been through the legal process.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> It would be for legal reason.  They could get into serious trouble if they appeared to be apportioning blame before an incident has been through the legal process.



That doesn't explain why "the bike collided with the van".  There is a difference between that and "a van and cyclist collided".  This is such a regular turn of phrase in print journalism that there is an entire thread dedicated to it on a cycling forum I frequent.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 16, 2015)

I'd argue, since the bloke seems to have very deliberately knocked him off the bike, that that is a very serious assault using the van as a weapon.

eta: Watching the vid again there sounds to b some witnesses since there are two horns being sounded.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 16, 2015)

Seen this a few times in person, the driver who clipped my handlebar and sent me flying onto the pavement stopped to shout at me  before pulling away shaking his head at my apparent gall in sharing the road.

Sometimes I think it's almost a reflex reaction to realising you're a shit driver, people hate thinking that about themselves so it must be the other person's fault, especially if they're a cyclist.

Hope he gets thoroughly fucked over.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 16, 2015)

In no way am I looking to appoint any blame on the cyclists but he was riding too close to the kerb.  I find cycling much less stressful when I cycle further out into the road.  Cycle close to the kerb and cars often slide past leaving little room.  Take the lane and people passing actually overtake, rather than simply try to squeeze past.

Anyway, the driver deserves to lose his license for several years, and probably be up for some kind of assault with a weapon charge.  I'd also like to see the driver take up cycling so he can get around after losing his license.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Now being reported the bloke has been suspended by the company and has 'voluntarily attended a police station'.



Misuse of a company vehicle, Assault whilst undertaking duties, bringing the company name unto disrepute. Any more? Gross misconduct on crack. Hope he doesn't need the money.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> Seen this a few times in person, the driver who clipped my handlebar and sent me flying onto the pavement stopped to shout at me  before pulling away shaking his head at my apparent gall in sharing the road.
> 
> Sometimes I think it's almost a reflex reaction to realising you're a shit driver, people hate thinking that about themselves so it must be the other person's fault, especially if they're a cyclist.
> 
> Hope he gets thoroughly fucked over.



Watching this the second time, it seems the cyclists "offence" was to tell the driver to get off his phone (I dunno if you can see if he's using his phone in the vid, I cba to watch it again, you can hear the cyclist talk), then the guy pulls into the cyclist, knocking him off his bike, comes round the van and calls the cyclists a muppet and shouts at him something like why did you just ride into my motor, before assaulting him.

If he's not totally fucked, both sacked by his company and properly done in court it'll be as much of an outrage as the driver who got a fine for killing a cyclist, and the one who got a verbal warning from police for assualting a cyclist in Birmingham in a road rage incident


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Misuse of a company vehicle, Assault whilst undertaking duties, bringing the company name unto disrepute. Any more? Gross misconduct on crack. Hope he doesn't need the money.



Sounds like he was on the phone at the time, so if he gets points on his licence and his employer requires a clean licence then there's another.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> In no way am I looking to appoint any blame on the cyclists but he was riding too close to the kerb.  I find cycling much less stressful when I cycle further out into the road.  Cycle close to the kerb and cars often slide past leaving little room.  Take the lane and people passing actually overtake, rather than simply try to squeeze past.



This is really sound advice.  It was drummed into me reading yon Cyclcecraft book that loads of people seem to recommend, but it took a while for me to gain the confidence to actually do it on the fast A roads I was ommuting along when I first started riding.  

Had a woman slide pass me to the point of clipping my elbow in spite of the lane to her right being empty which encouraged a more assertive approach and the notice was immediately noticeable.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2015)

There isn't no flies on the cyclist though. Why was he passing the vehicle on the inside at the start of the vid? That's probably why he removed it from youtube.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2015)

Needs to read the highway code as he violated it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2015)

Tbh it seems that what's on the vid probably wasn't the start of the incident.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Needs to read the highway code as he violated it.



Cyclists are allowed to filter on the left or the right, not sure I want to watch the video again, but wasn't the van stopped because the truck in front was waiting to turn left? Personally wouldn't have gone past the van then but I'm not sure he broke the highway code. 
In any case, it's completely irrelevant, not only because it wasn't that which got the driver riled, but because it wouldn't be justification for what came next and there's so much victim blaming around cyclists that it's really something that should just be left out, even though I don't think for one second you are saying this like it's any kind of justification for what came next.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> There isn't no flies on the cyclist though. Why was he passing the vehicle on the inside at the start of the vid? That's probably why he removed it from youtube.


I agree that his positioning was poor. He went through the pinch point at the zebra crossing without taking the lane. However, that doesn't excuse the van driver's behaviour. People like him imagine they own the road because they pay the mythical road tax.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Tbh it seems that what's on the vid probably wasn't the start of the incident.



It is.  The vid posted in the thread a few posts up shows the lead up to the incident.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 16, 2015)

Filtering isn't illegal, on either side.

Agree that he's close to the kerb, but also has a wide load on the back so might have tucked in a bit because of that.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 16, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Cyclists are allowed to filter on the left or the right, not sure I want to watch the video again, but wasn't the van stopped because the truck in front was waiting to turn left? Personally wouldn't have gone past the van then but I'm not sure he broke the highway code.
> In any case, it's completely irrelevant, not only because it wasn't that which got the driver riled, but because it wouldn't be justification for what came next and there's so much victim blaming around cyclists that it's really something that should just be left out, even though I don't think for one second you are saying this like it's any kind of justification for what came next.



There was a car turning left which caused the van to just about slow to a halt.  Not the best move and I wouldn't have filtered myself, but no justification.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Needs to read the highway code as he violated it.



Riding up the inside of traffic is dumb....but when you're driving a car you're in charge of a the best part of a ton of metal. That being the case you should really take care.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Tbh it seems that what's on the vid probably wasn't the start of the incident.


The earlier footage:


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> There isn't no flies on the cyclist though. Why was he passing the vehicle on the inside at the start of the vid? That's probably why he removed it from youtube.



It's not against the Highway Code.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

Just to be absolutely clear. Outcome 4.1 of the National Standards for Cycling states:



> 4.1
> Upon encountering queuing traffic, the trainee may pass it (on the right or left) or may choose to wait in the queue.



http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk/wp-co..._Standard_for_Cycle_Training_Level_THREE1.pdf (PDF page 5)

The exception to this is large vehicles:



> 6.5 Trainees must never cycle up the left side of a large vehicle stopped at a junction



(I'm a qualified national standards cycling instructor, though I work in office and don't deliver many lessons)


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Needs to read the highway code as he violated it.



Don't lie.


----------



## 2hats (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Tbh it seems that what's on the vid probably wasn't the start of the incident.



A good half minute prior to the incident:

Interesting. MoT apparently expired in September.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 16, 2015)

That bin wagon didn't overtake him particularly safely, someone needs a word with them too.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> That bin wagon didn't overtake him particularly safely, someone needs a word with them too.



Yep, was thinking that if we going to start flagging up every violation both the bin wagon and the van passed way too close the first time.







Also, if we had proper infrastructure this would never have happened (although the driver's obviously an utter cunt so who knows, but the whole sequence at the left turn would have been totally different). I bet shit likes this happens in Holland/Denmark, but I bet it's hardly as often as here.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 16, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Yep, was thinking that if we going to start flagging up every violation both the bin wagon and the van passed way too close the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




tbf, in Holland cars tend to drive closer to bikes than in the UK on shared roads. No idea about Denmark.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf, in Holland cars tend to drive closer to bikes than in the UK on shared roads. No idea about Denmark.



My (second or third) cousin from Denmark were over for Christmas this year, one lives in Cardiff. They don't cycle here at all. I haven't been to holland for years but aren't the shared roads all slow / low flow roads, like 30km/h speed limits, residential type roads?
From the looks of the road in the video (and you don't get a great view of it), I'm pretty certain that road would be segregated in Denmark, I'd say it's high flow and possibly 40mph limit. I dunno about Holland, but I'm fairly sure it's the same. .


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 16, 2015)

BigTom said:


> M I haven't been to holland for years but aren't the shared roads all slow / low flow roads, like 30km/h speed limits, residential type roads?



Yes, nearly all are slow roads, but in that vid the van wasn't going fast, the driver appears to have taken the cream-puff at being called out for using a mobile whilst driving and decided to ram the cyclist off the road, then give him a belt for good measure.

I'm sure Holland and Denmark have arseholes like him, perhaps the UK has more though?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, nearly all are slow roads, but in that vid the van wasn't going fast, the driver appears to have taken the cream-puff at being called out for using a mobile whilst driving and decided to ram the cyclist off the road, then give him a belt for good measure.
> 
> I'm sure Holland and Denmark have arseholes like him, perhaps the UK has more though?



I doubt it, I just think that there's loads of tension between drivers and cyclists that would be removed with good infrastructure so we have it worse, I didn't ask my cousins if there was much road rage stuff or things like insurance and road tax in Denmark. Anyway, I did qualify what I said by saying the driver's an utter cunt so who knows what would have happened - someone who is really determined to be a cunt will find a way. Question is, was he being a cunt towards the cyclist because the cyclist was cycling, or because the driver is a cunt? If it's the first then I don't think that'd be there with proper infrastructure. The guy would probably find someone else to be a cunt to.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2015)

Lorry driver in Birmingham cleared of blame after running over and killing a cyclist and failing to stop 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/lorry-driver-cleared-after-fatal-8463538


----------



## BigTom (Jan 16, 2015)

wtf?


----------



## bemused (Jan 16, 2015)

I'm always astounded the way people fight to get around cyclists in London. It's not like they aren't going to undertake you 10 minutes later. I just put the radio and relax, it's stressful enough on the road without making it worst for yourself.

This is also why I don't ride a bike to work and only at the weekend.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 16, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Needs to read the highway code as he violated it.



Now there speaks a driver who's *certain* he's right. Knows the highway code, been driving for years, all cyclists jump red lights, illegal to ride two abreast, I pay road tax, etc, etc


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2015)

> A man has attended a police station in Essex over a cycle video that appeared on YouTube in which a cyclist was assaulted by a van driver.
> 
> Essex Police have passed the investigation onto the Met as the incident took place in Emerson Park [...]



http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/ne...rd_over_emerson_park_cyclist_attack_1_3920175


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Lorry driver in Birmingham cleared of blame after running over and killing a cyclist and failing to stop
> 
> http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/lorry-driver-cleared-after-fatal-8463538


He said he didn't know he had hit her but that he was wring to leave the scene. Can't be both surely?


----------



## T & P (Jan 16, 2015)

The firm has had its Trust a Trader membership suspended now.

Trust a Trader to drive like a cunt and disrespect cyclists, presumably


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2015)

Was the cyclist wearing Google Glass and infringing on the van driver's privacy?

Because previously these boards have supported those who take a stance against being filmed without permission. 

Although obviously physical violence is taking it rather too far.


----------



## maomao (Jan 16, 2015)

Gromit said:


> previously these boards have supported those who take a stance against being filmed without permission


I wasn't aware that software was capable of having an opinion.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2015)

maomao said:


> I wasn't aware that software was capable of having an opinion.



Never seen 2001 or The Terminator?


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 16, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Was the cyclist wearing Google Glass and infringing on the van driver's privacy?
> 
> Because previously these boards have supported those who take a stance against being filmed without permission.
> 
> Although obviously physical violence is taking it rather too far.



Have they? I doubt that's true tbh


----------



## maomao (Jan 16, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Never seen 2001 or The Terminator?


I was just pointing out that your ineffectual attempt at stirring was based around the spurious premise that there's some sort of consensus on these boards that's only challenged by free-thinking, child-rape defending rebels like yourself.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2015)

maomao said:


> I was just pointing out that your ineffectual attempt at stirring was based around the spurious premise that there's some sort of consensus on these boards that's only challenged by free-thinking, child-rape defending rebels like yourself.



For the record, I haven't defended any child rapists. 

I've just rolled my eyes at people who think they know more about something after reading the Internet and and few newspapers than a qualified and trained person who has spent days scrutinising evidence and testimony (given in person).


----------



## a_chap (Jan 16, 2015)

And wooosh! Derailed at the speed of light. Well done Gromit.


----------



## T & P (Jan 16, 2015)

Best instance of victim blaming I've come across in a long, long time.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 16, 2015)

No wonder loads of cyclist have cameras, I've seen enough dicks while I'm cycling & that's in a smallish town.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2015)

Gromit said:


> For the record, I haven't defended any child rapists.
> 
> I've just rolled my eyes at people who think they know more about something after reading the Internet and and few newspapers than a qualified and trained person who has spent days scrutinising evidence and testimony (given in person).



It's interesting that you think you know more than actual teachers and social workers though.


----------



## coley (Jan 16, 2015)

Gromit said:


> For the record, I haven't defended any child rapists.
> 
> I've just rolled my eyes at people who think they know more about something after reading the Internet and and few newspapers than a qualified and trained person who has spent days scrutinising evidence and testimony (given in person).


Eh? The polis haven't decided if a prosecution is needed! Or who is responsible for deciding on the issue,Who are these qualified and trained persons you speak of?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Don't lie.



I'm not lying. I genuinely thought people aren't supposed to overtake on the inside of another vehicle. It's seems spectacularly stupid to me if it is allowed.


----------



## harpo (Jan 17, 2015)

So..on the news.. the perp has given himself in and the cyclist isn't pressing charges.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jan 17, 2015)

harpo said:


> So..on the news.. the perp has given himself in and the cyclist isn't pressing charges.



I'd be surprised if the police don't charge him anyway, he deliberately knocked him down.


----------



## harpo (Jan 17, 2015)

lizzieloo said:


> I'd be surprised if the police don't charge him anyway, he deliberately knocked him down.


They might.  They should.  There was quite clear footage of a smacking.  Never an acceptable reaction.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 17, 2015)

harpo said:


> the cyclist isn't pressing charges.


I would


----------



## Nylock (Jan 17, 2015)

If some cunt ran me off the road in his van before thumping me, I'd want not just the book but the whole fucking library thrown at them.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 17, 2015)

Gromit said:


> For the record, I haven't defended any child rapists.
> 
> I've just rolled my eyes at people who think they know more about something after reading the Internet and and few newspapers than a qualified and trained person who has spent days scrutinising evidence and testimony (given in person).


After reading the the entire Internet and a few newspapers, I think that they would
be quite old and able to dismiss the bias of the few newspapers but would have completely forgotten what the original question was.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 17, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> It's interesting that you think you know more than actual teachers and social workers though.



but i don't. By challenging their views I've learnt some interesting stuff off of them that i wouldn't have otherwise. feel free to quote me on that.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 17, 2015)

coley said:


> Eh? The polis haven't decided if a prosecution is needed! Or who is responsible for deciding on the issue,Who are these qualified and trained persons you speak of?



You talking about the cycling case? 

maomao had referred to another thread and i was responding to that.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not lying. I genuinely thought people aren't supposed to overtake on the inside of another vehicle. It's seems spectacularly stupid to me if it is allowed.



As my post #35 shows, it most definitely is allowed. 
Filtering is taught as part of Level 3 of the national standards for cycling (this is the part of the highway code that gives specific directions to cyclists, it replaced cycling proficiency stuff in 2004 iirc. It's set out as a teaching document rather than one instructive to cyclists though, as it was designed by the cycle training organisations and then accepted by DfT). Where this is taught to schoolchildren, it is taught at secondary level, with levels 1 and 2 being taught to yrs 5 & 6 (last two years of primary school, 8-10 years old?).

There are advantages and disadvantages to filtering past traffic, and cyclists are given the choice - and taught to judge each situation on individually, although personal preference tends to mean most people use one side or the other - because of this.

Advantages of filtering on the left:
No oncoming traffic
Pavement to escape to if needs be
Usually a gap left by drivers you can go through, can get off onto pavement if it's not there and go around a car before returning to the road.

Also worth noting that painted cycle lanes, which are for the most part only really useful for creating a defined gap through which cyclists can filter past traffic (they are brought to you by the same people who brought you bus lanes) are almost invariably on the left. (Also, Just cos it's another very common misconception, cyclists are not required to use cycle lanes (Rule 61), so the existence of the cycle lane, does not legally mean someone can't filter past on the right).

Disadvantages of filtering on the left:
More likely to have a passenger open a door without looking
Driver's turning right into side road have less visibility, very easy for them to be unable to see you coming up the cycle lane. Also you may find drivers pulling out of side roads to turn left blocking your way, or turning right and just looking at other drivers/cars for a gap, not looking for a filtering cyclist. (You have a similar set of issues on the right which I'll come on to shortly).
In general, drivers are less likely to be looking here as they don't expect people to undertake.

Advantages of filtering on the right:
If there's no oncoming traffic you can get yourself out into the oncoming lane and reduce your risks to what is the likely minimum of any filtering maneouvre.
In general drivers are more likely to expect you to be here and are more likely to already be looking here for motorcyclists when maneouvering from queuing traffic.
Less likely to have a passenger get out without looking but be aware of possibility

Disadvantages:
Nowhere to escape to if things suddenly look like they are about to go wrong
Drivers may u-turn without looking
Drivers turning right out of side roads will have lowered visibility, may be unable to see you filtering. However, Drivers turning right into a side road will be able to see you, and drivers turning left out of a side road will mostly not be a particular hazard, though be aware that long vehicles may need to come further out into the road in order to complete the left turn.

When filtering on the right, oncoming traffic is the major hazard. If there is no oncoming traffic you should ride at least a doors width away from the traffic you are filtering past and be watching for indicators and/or a car starting to move in case of u-turn, and be aware of the possibility of pedestrians stepping out between cars without looking in your direction, and from the right hand pavement (same issue on the left, just reversed - each side you have a pavement on one side that you can see, and a pavement on the other that you can't). With your other eye, be watching for oncoming traffic.
When there is oncoming traffic you need to make a decision as to whether there is the width - and whether oncoming drivers will let you use that width - to continue to filter past drivers. It's often safer to tuck in between cars and wait for oncoming traffic to go past, especially if it's just one or two drivers, or you could swap sides and continue to filter on the left - if you do this, make sure you look to check that no cyclists are filtering past on the left already before you begin to filter on the left yourself.

There's also the option of not filtering at all, and waiting in the line of traffic. If you do this, put yourself in primary position (taking the middle of the lane), because you don't want to let a driver put you in their blind spot, then pull in / turn left onto you when traffic starts moving because they've forgotten you are there / not looked. When traffic moves off, stay in primary if you are matching the speed of the traffic moving (including if it's clear that the traffic is going to stop again shortly and although it's moving faster than you are, you'll catch up in a moment, for instance at a set of traffic lights where you know the phases and the driver in front of you is not getting through on this green). Pull into secondary, doing a left shoulder check first in case of other cyclists filtering on the left, to continue your journey, unless primary position is the right position to use for other reasons (eg: pinch point or side road).

That's more or less what I'd say about filtering in a level 3 lesson. (quite a lot of councils/transport authorities have free lessons available for adults, so if anyone wants to get a lesson you probably can, start by googling your council's cycling page and if that doesn't work, contact their road safety team and ask them).

It's really easy to tell the motorcyclists when teaching this part of the lesson. We always try to find a bit on a level 3 route where there's often a traffic jam, and will talk about filtering, ride with the trainee filtering left and right, after demonstrating (assuming the trainee wants to filter at all, and that the traffic jam is clearly going to be around for long enough for a demonstration and then practical). Motorcyclists never need a demonstration and invariably filter on the right, and reject filtering on the left out of hand, saying they'd prefer to wait in line.

Personally, filtering on the right is my default. I wouldn't have gone past the van at that point in the video, as I think it would be clear the left turn is going to clear fairly quickly, but maybe that's not the case - maybe the cyclist knows this left turn well, and knows that it's often a traffic jam, and thinks that the truck in front of the van is going to be blocking the road. He correctly will not filter left past a large vehicle and may decide that the best option for this situation is to filter left past the van, which will stop behind the truck (which is either waiting to turn left or partway through its manoeuvre to turn left, actually blocking any possibility of filtering past on the left), leaving a gap through which the cyclist can manoeuvre over to the right hand side of the truck and filter past the side road (paying attention to drivers pulling out who won't be looking because there's a truck blocking the traffic) and then continue their journey. They have a wide load on their back, so they may have chosen not to filter on the right because oncoming traffic makes this impossible. The load might be very heavy as well for all we know so they may be particularly concerned about losing momentum (not a reason to risk your safety but worth remembering when considering why people make decisions, and also that in this particular instance, if the driver wasn't a total cunt, the cyclist would have been fine).

In this case the traffic down the side road cleared quickly so the driver of the van got moving (although not quickly enough that the cyclist was unable to complete their manoeuvre and get in front of the driver) and it may look like a bad decision, made by a cyclist who is _doing it wrong _but actually the above is a perfectly conceivable scenario in which the cyclist made perfectly good decisions which didn't work out. Without knowing the road specifically (and because the camera is at a particularly bad angle), it's very difficult to make specific comments. Level 3 is more about teaching a cyclist how to think about scenarios, rather than giving fairly set rules.

Back when cycling proficiency was taught, everyone was taught to filter on the left. Almost all cycling "infrastructure" that exists is on the left. ime training adults, most feel more comfortable filtering on the left (though these are relatively new cyclists (or people who learnt as a kid but never taught how to ride on the road) so they may start to filter on the right as they gain confidence. For structural and individual reasons, expect cyclists to be there.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2015)

Also should add that although it's not clear it seems that cyclists are legally required to enter an ASL from the lead in lane which is never from the right, either on the left or in the middle of two lanes. The company I work for informally asked their local police and were told they thought this was the case but they'd never the action against someone entering from the right. So there's at least one situation where cyclists are legally (if not actually) required to filter on the left (or not filter but as the whole point of ASLs is to provide a space for filtering cyclists that's a moot point)


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2015)

I very rarely if ever filter on the left, preferring to filter on the right or often just wait in the traffic queue. I regard filtering on the left as mostly suicidal.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

I agree. Because passengers can be non-drivers and not even adults. If they're finding it difficult to find somewhere to park the passenger may decide to just jump out to run to the shop they've pulled up at - mirrors are set up for the driver, not the passenger, and it may not even enter their head that a cyclist might be 'filtering' on the inside. I'd be surprised if cyclists going into opened passenger doors isn't a common occurrence. When I had my scooter it was one thing my boss (who was an experienced motorbike rider) told me to be very aware of and perhaps avoid, so I did.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

But besides, the cyclist overtakes the driver on the inside when the vehicle is moving, so is overtaking on the inside rather than filtering beside queued traffic which I thought was against the highway code (like lanes on motorways, for example).


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

According to a copper mate of mine, if the cyclist doesn't press charges, there's nothing that can be done in terms of prosecution.  Different types of crime have different rules in that regard (or something; I'd had a few drinks by this point), and apparently this is one that needs a victim willing to prosecute.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> But besides, the cyclist overtakes the driver on the inside when the vehicle is moving, so is overtaking on the inside rather than filtering beside queued traffic which I thought was against the highway code (like lanes on motorways, for example).


You can overtake in the inside lane on a motorway too under certain conditions, such as heavy traffic.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I agree. Because passengers can be non-drivers and not even adults. If they're finding it difficult to find somewhere to park the passenger may decide to just jump out to run to the shop they've pulled up at - mirrors are set up for the driver, not the passenger, and it may not even enter their head that a cyclist might be 'filtering' on the inside. I'd be surprised if cyclists going into opened passenger doors isn't a common occurrence. When I had my scooter it was one thing my boss (who was an experienced motorbike rider) told me to be very aware of and perhaps avoid, so I did.



Passengers can exit from the right as well as the left of a car. Being "doored" by parked cars is very common - iirc the second most common type of collision to result in a serious injury to a cyclist in London from 2007-2012 was by someone opening a door without looking. If you are filtering on the left and someone opens a door on you, you'll go into the pavement. If you are filtering on the right then you'll go into the path of (potential) oncoming traffic. But filtering on the right you can ride wide enough of car doors that it's not a problem. You still need to watch for drivers pulling out to u-turn though.



Citizen66 said:


> But besides, the cyclist overtakes the driver on the inside when the vehicle is moving, so is overtaking on the inside rather than filtering beside queued traffic which I thought was against the highway code (like lanes on motorways, for example).



I'm at work now and my computer here is shit so I actually can't watch the video again. From memory the sequence goes like this:

Lorry and van overtake cyclist (both way too close as it happens).
Lorry goes to turn left (out of camera shot) and is unable to complete the turn due to traffic or something in the side road.
Van stops behind lorry
Cyclist starts to filter past van on left hand side.
Lorry moves off and van starts moving.
Cyclist completes the filtering maneouvre as the van starts moving, he definitely gets enough ahead of the van to look back and see the driver on his phone.
Driver overtakes cyclists and pulls in on him.

If the cyclist didn't expect the lorry to be able to start moving so quickly, then I think he was filtering, not undertaking. Even if the van was still moving, it will be so slow that I think it would be regarded as queuing traffic, which you are allowed to undertake.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> According to a copper mate of mine, if the cyclist doesn't press charges, there's nothing that can be done in terms of prosecution.  Different types of crime have different rules in that regard (or something; I'd had a few drinks by this point), and apparently this is one that needs a victim willing to prosecute.


A victim's support is never procedurally required ('press charges' is Hollywood malarkey; it isn't the victim's decision), but their evidence is often essential and it usually isn't worth forcing them to give evidence in court.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

Given the lamentable penalties exacted by the law - especially if no one is actually killed, perhaps being named and shamed is as effective as anything - his passenger called him a muppet - and doubtless others will too.
Even the Fail commenters struggled to blame the cyclist.

I had an interaction with a 4-wheel scooter rider last year where after failing to make me fall off he invited me to come to the side of the road to "sort it out" - which I declined. When he realised I had him on video he turned tail.
I never even made the video public, but am keeping it as insurance - and no way would I want the hassle of dealing with the police.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Does everyone film everyone else nowadays? I doubt even Orwell imagined the surveilance would be quite so consensual.


----------



## newbie (Jan 17, 2015)

Good set of posts Tom, much better than the blanket 'don't filter on the left' stuff which is almost universally ignored, particularly by those cyclists who are less than 100% fit enough to mix it with the motorbikes on the right.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 17, 2015)

BigTom said:


> From memory the sequence goes like this:
> 
> Lorry and van overtake cyclist (both way too close as it happens).
> Lorry goes to turn left (out of camera shot) and is unable to complete the turn due to traffic or something in the side road.
> ...



You missed out:

Cyclist enters yellow box instead of waiting for lorry to complete it's turn.
Cyclist shouts insult at van driver.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Does everyone film everyone else nowadays? I doubt even Orwell imagined the surveilance would be quite so consensual.


luckily there seems to be some kind of instinctual disgust at google glass, but i doubt it will last once the price comes down and the early adopters start adding up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Gromit said:


> For the record, I haven't defended any child rapists.
> 
> I've just rolled my eyes at people who think they know more about something after reading the Internet and and few newspapers than a qualified and trained person who has spent days scrutinising evidence and testimony (given in person).


Can we permaban this troll please? He's actually admitted to being one.


----------



## High Voltage (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Does everyone film everyone else nowadays? I doubt even Orwell imagined the surveilance would be quite so consensual.



Off thread but yes, I have a video camera in my car now as the result of a car accident 3 years ago - which has only just before this Christmas been finally sorted out - if I'd have had video evidence I doubt it would have dragged on so long and wouldn't have had to go to a small claims court


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 17, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> I had an interaction with a 4-wheel scooter rider



A what?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

Which bit don't you understand ?


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2015)

The 4 wheeled scooter bit, probably. Do you mean a quad bike?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

Well it wasn't a chunky offroad quad bike - it had two pairs of closely-spaced wheels and was able to bank on corners.

Apparently there are 3 wheel versions - I'd have to check my footage

 

Three wheels.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

harpo said:


> They might.  They should.  There was quite clear footage of a smacking.  Never an acceptable reaction.



It wasn't acceptable here but that cyclist who got a slap after chasing down that Audi in London and abusing the driver deserved everything he got.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 17, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Passengers can exit from the right as well as the left of a car. Being "doored" by parked cars is very common ...



I think most cyclists are aware of being 'doored' - it's just one of the things you have to learn to become alert to.  Whereas planners are seemingly oblivious to the dangers of cycling in the door zone..








I respect the cyclists decision not to press charges.  I probably would myself, but there's much to be said about letting things be.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> I think most cyclists are aware of being 'doored' - it's just one of the things you have to learn to become alert to.  Whereas planners are seemingly oblivious to the dangers of cycling in the door zone..



But where else would you put that lane?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It wasn't acceptable here but that cyclist who got a slap after chasing down that Audi in London and abusing the driver deserved everything he got.


What incident? But surely it's not on to slap someone just cos they've given you a mouthful of abuse for nearly knocking them off? I've done the same. It raises your hackles. No need to escalate to violence though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But where else would you put that lane?


On the other side of the pavement? It's very wide.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> According to a copper mate of mine, if the cyclist doesn't press charges, there's nothing that can be done in terms of prosecution.  Different types of crime have different rules in that regard (or something; I'd had a few drinks by this point), and apparently this is one that needs a victim willing to prosecute.



I asked one of our cycling instructors today, ex-west mids police, and he said that they can investigate & charge without a complaint as long as there's clear evidence of a crime having been committed, and that he'd think that this would be a case where they could.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But where else would you put that lane?



You do something like this:





Sometimes you are now seeing painted lanes with protection where the order goes: pavement / parking / bike lane / other lanes.

A lane like that simply isn't safe, the parking needs to be pushed out by a couple of feet to give space for people to get in and out of cars. What happens when you don't is that cyclists will either use the pavement or the road and get shouted at by pedestrians/drivers or they'll ride along here until they get doored and then they won't ride there again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What incident?



It was posted here a while back. An incident in Farringdon I think. The cyclist had a pop at a driver who drove into the advanced stop box. The driver drove away and the cyclist chased the car to the next junction where he shouted at him aggressively that he was a "fucking prick". Passenger got out and lamped him.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

It's greenwashing - made up as they go along.
This was yesterday - half an hour into this being a bus lane.



The short term parking has dotted bays and I've even seen PCSOs on bikes riding alongside cars inside that tempting solid white line.
Even though I sensibly avoided using it, this driver nearly got me in spite of good lights and high viz. 
Perhaps they actually saw me, perhaps they were stopped by me flashing my high beam and sounding my car horn.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 17, 2015)

Shit driver got called out on it and passenger resorts to ABH. You think that's fair enough?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It was posted here a while back. An incident in Farringdon I think. The cyclist had a pop at a driver who drove into the advanced stop box. The driver drove away and the cyclist chased the car to the next junction where he shouted at him aggressively that he was a "fucking prick". Passenger got out and lamped him.


And he deserved to get lamped for that?


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But where else would you put that lane?



What BigTom said - and I'd add that I'd much rather no cycle lane than a poor quality / dangerous one.  Some 'special' motorists use the presence of a cycle lane as an excuse to try to run a cyclist off the road if they are not using them.  I've even been given abuse for avoiding a clearly snow and ice covered cycle path, but I digress.

Anyway, right from the start streets need to be designed for three - pedestrians, cyclists and cars.  Moving, and parked cars are hugely inefficient, especially in regard to the amount of room it takes to acccommodate them .  If there's not enough room for cars and parked cars then, personally, I don't think the default position should be to ignore the needs of the cyclist.  We really need to question the amount of our urban space which is automatically handed over to the private motorcar.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Yup, i actually avoid the majority of cycle lanes, even on wider roads. They're actually a handy guide for where not to cycle


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yup, i actually avoid the majority of cycle lanes, even on wider roads. They're actually a handy guide for where not to cycle



Yup.  My default position is to ignore them until I know the route.

However sometimes I'll take a shitty cycle path simply to avoid conflict - it irritates me that seemingly so many people who are driving just don't understand why a cycle path should be avoided.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 17, 2015)

We had a driver complain to our cycling club about a member not using a cycle lane. The lack of understanding about them is painful.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And he deserved to get lamped for that?



I think anyone who goes out of their way to chase down and aggressively abuse someone else has to suck it up if they get chinned.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I think anyone who goes out of their way to chase down and aggressively abuse someone else has to suck it up if they get chinned.


Nope. Not after cutting someone up. If you've just feared for your life, you can be forgiven for getting angry, but not for twatting someone.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I think anyone who goes out of their way to chase down and aggressively abuse someone else has to suck it up if they get chinned.


Also, i did it when someone tried to run me off the road. I wanted to get his number plate, but I unfortunately I also gave him a mouthful of abuse and he tried to kill me again. It's not a good idea to verbally abuse anyone in such circumstances, but it's unacceptable to escalate it to physical violence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope. Not after cutting someone up. If you've just feared for your life, you can be forgiven for getting angry, but not for twatting someone.



The guy wasn't cut up. He actually backed his bike up to have a go at the driver then chased the motor down the street!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Also, i did it when someone tried to run me off the road. I wanted to get his number plate, but I unfortunately I also gave him a mouthful of abuse and he tried to kill me again. It's not a good idea to verbally abuse anyone in such circumstances, but it's unacceptable to escalate it to physical violence.



If someone tried to run you off the road he deserves a kicking. But that's not what happened in the Farringdon incident.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The guy wasn't cut up. He actually backed his bike up to have a go at the driver then chased the motor down the street!


still, unacceptable to escalate from verbal to physical abuse


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> If someone tried to run you off the road he deserves a kicking. But that's not what happened in the Farringdon incident.


no, he didn't deserve a kicking, he deserved to be prosecuted


----------



## cantsin (Jan 17, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Watching this the second time, it seems the cyclists "offence" was to tell the driver to get off his phone (I dunno if you can see if he's using his phone in the vid, I cba to watch it again, you can hear the cyclist talk), then the guy pulls into the cyclist, knocking him off his bike, comes round the van and calls the cyclists a muppet and shouts at him something like why did you just ride into my motor, before assaulting him.
> 
> If he's not totally fucked, both sacked by his company and properly done in court it'll be as much of an outrage as the driver who got a fine for killing a cyclist, and the one who got a verbal warning from police for assualting a cyclist in Birmingham in a road rage incident



I actually can't watch these video's, bad for mental health/blood pressure, makes me want to take up cycling, get going round Ldn, and conceal a cosh  / some squirt where the water bottle should be.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

Someone is going to have to explain the relevance of the Farringdon incident here, other than reinforcing the idea of collective responsibilty and cyclists 'asking for it'.


----------



## smmudge (Jan 17, 2015)

In the vid in the OP the van also overtakes on the zig-zag lines leading up to the zebra crossing. Pretty sure that's a no-no in the highway code.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> still, unacceptable to escalate from verbal to physical abuse



Unsurprisingly, we disagree!


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

rover07 said:


> You missed out:
> 
> Cyclist enters yellow box instead of waiting for lorry to complete it's turn.
> Cyclist shouts insult at van driver.



You're only supposed to refrain from entereing the hatched area if you have no exit route available (ie, your entering the area will cause an obstruction) .  As the cyclist was planning on filtering there really is no issue.  Even if you feel he made the wrong call it isn't a justification for running him off the road with a ton and a half of metal.

As for the insult, I get insults thrown at me occasionally but I haven't ever tried to kill the perpetrator.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 17, 2015)

I never quite understand what people hope to achieve shouting at other road users. 

You think you were in the right, they will think they are in the right. 
No amount of verbal interaction is going to change that. 
Arguing can lead to violence. 
Not having an argument doesn't. 

I've only once wanted to speak to a cyclist. I cut him up and he obviously wanted to have a go at me. When I pulled over and got out of the car he took one look at me, changed his mind and rode off. 

I was disappointed because I wanted to explain how the fact he was wearing black clothing and had no lights on his bike whilst cycling at night on a dark road may have something to do with people like me not seeing him (and will get him killed one day).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> still, unacceptable to escalate from verbal to physical abuse


sometimes it's unacceptable not to ascend to violence


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 17, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Now there speaks a driver who's *certain* he's right. Knows the highway code, been driving for years, all cyclists jump red lights, illegal to ride two abreast, I pay road tax, etc, etc



There's a bloke in the pub who knows - for definite! - that all London cyclists have links with Islamic State.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 17, 2015)

isvicthere? said:


> There's a bloke in the pub who knows - for definite! - that all London cyclists have liinks with Islamic State.


They are certainly suspicious for not using cars like normal people. They must be upto something.


----------



## harpo (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It wasn't acceptable here but that cyclist who got a slap after chasing down that Audi in London and abusing the driver deserved everything he got.


Didn't see that one.  What did he do?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

harpo said:


> Didn't see that one.  What did he do?



Keep reading.


----------



## harpo (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Keep reading.


...alright then...


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> If you've just feared for your life, you can be forgiven for getting angry, but not for twatting someone.



I agree, but anger's also natural if you've nearly hit someone through no fault of your own.  Years ago I was cycling through the middle of Hull when an old lady stepped out into the road right in front of me.  I'd spotted her at the kerb and seen her looking left and right so assumed she'd seen me, but evidently not.  How I managed to avoid her and stay on I don't know, but it's a good job I did as I was doing 20ish and it'd have been nasty if I'd hit her.  I'm not proud of myself for having given an old lady an earful at top volume in the middle of a busy street, but it was a fairly natural reaction.  Hopefully she looked out for cyclists thereafter.

Re. the OP there's nothing much to say except that they should throw the book at the driver.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 17, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Re. the OP there's nothing much to say except that they should throw the book at the driver.



^^^^this.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 17, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> sometimes it's unacceptable not to ascend to violence



Perhaps, sometimes.  However violence is never never acceptable towards a stranger for something as benign as a disagreement over ones driving / cycling ability.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 17, 2015)

There's an escalation when it's no longer incompetence and moves into "using car as a weapon" territory.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Perhaps, sometimes.  However violence is never never acceptable towards a stranger for something as benign as a disagreement over ones driving / cycling ability.



It wasn't about the driving/cycling. It was about being chased down the road and viciously abused.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

Viciously


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

Though yet again you'll have to explain the relevance of that incident to that in the OP.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Though yet again you'll have to explain the relevance of that incident to that in the OP.



Response to "smacking is never acceptable".


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Response to "smacking is never acceptable".


I don't think you really believe that physical damage to another person is ever acceptable unless in defence from a physical attack.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

ChrisFilter said:


> I don't think you really believe that physical damage to another person is ever acceptable unless in defence from a physical attack.



Perhaps not serious physical damage but I think a smack in the mouth can sometimes be an appropriate response to a number of transgressions.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Jan 17, 2015)

Why are there so many people with anger issues in the UK? Why is it so ingrained?

It's not the same in other european countries, they usually just shout and wave their arms about a lot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps not serious physical damage but I think a smack in the mouth can sometimes be an appropriate response to a number of transgressions.


thug


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> thug



Wally


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Wally


have you smacked people in the mouth as an adult then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Only sanctimonious whiners.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Only sanctimonious whiners.


you really think that? the vast majority of us have never hit another person, surely?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> you really think that? the vast majority of us have never hit another person, surely?



It was a joke. 
But seriously, get down from your cross.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

I can't even begin to imagine hitting somebody because they said something I objected to.  Seriously, what the fuck?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It was a joke.
> But seriously, get down from your cross.


eh? what are you talking about?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Who said that like?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> have you smacked people in the mouth as an adult then?



I'm too old for all that now but 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice and I've no major problems with people taking limited correctional action in response to certain antisocial behaviour.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> eh? what are you talking about?



Actually it's Saturday night and there's better shit to do than split hairs with the morality cops.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

"Limited correctional action" _is_ antisocial behaviour.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'm too old for all that now but 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice and I've no major problems with people taking limited correctional action in response to certain antisocial behaviour.


It's not something to be proud about - lamping people for annoying you


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Actually it's Saturday night and there's better shit to do than split hairs with the morality cops.


not that shit again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> "Limited correctional action" _is_ antisocial behaviour.



I see it more as a public service.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster, you really need to pay close attention to the eggshell skull rule, or you might find yourself in deep trouble some day.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I see it more as a public service.


hitting people?  what planet are you on?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

If we get the rise of Hitler II let's hope we've got kabbes and ou on the team tutting at everyone.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)

Anudder Oik said:


> It's not the same in other european countries, they usually just shout and wave their arms about a lot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> If we get the rise of Hitler II let's hope we've got kabbes and ou on the team tutting at everyone.


that's rubbish


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> that's rubbish



We could gather round and sing kumbaya?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Pat each other on the back at how grown up we're all being.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> We could gather round and sing kumbaya?


are you seriously comparing resistance to fascism to this situation? I hate to mention G*****'s Law


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Yes, The rise of Hitler was only possible because the German population were all pacifists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Pat each other on the back at how grown up we're all being.


as opposed to slapping each other on the back for being good lads for administering slaps to other human beings


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> are you seriously comparing resistance to fascism to this situation? I hate to mention G*****'s Law



You said, I paraphrase: "surely nobody would do this as adults." [hit someone else]

So you're now conceding that in certain circumstances you might?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yes, The rise of Hitler was only possible because the German population were all pacifists.



"Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> You said, I paraphrase: "surely nobody would do this as adults." [hit someone else]
> 
> So you're now conceding that in certain circumstances you might?


i wasn't referring to fighting fascism. you brought it up!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> i wasn't referring to fighting fascism. you brought it up!



You said it simply wasn't a thing adults should do. Fascists are human beings too, no?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)

Kenny Noye - unsung anti-Nazi hero


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> You said it simply wasn't a thing adults should do. Fascists are human beings too, no?


this is getting weird. what has fascism got to do with any of this? we were talking about a specific situation.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2015)

This is the worst round-and-round-in-pointless-circles Saturday night handbags I've seen in a long time


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 17, 2015)

yup. i'm off to listen to music


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Tell you what -- if fascists start to take power and all else has failed, maybe then I'll consider violence.  But in the meantime, we're discussing a cyclist shouting at a driver, which is unlikely to lead to any genocide in and of itself.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'm too old for all that now but 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice and I've no major problems with people taking limited correctional action in response to certain antisocial behaviour.


So you're one of them?  Thought so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> you really think that? the vast majority of us have never hit another person, surely?


you should work on your aim then


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Tell you what -- if fascists start to take power and all else has failed, maybe then I'll consider violence.  But in the meantime, we're discussing a cyclist shouting at a driver, which is unlikely to lead to any genocide in and of itself.


if you only start considering violence when fascists start to take power it will be far too late.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2015)

Wtf are you all on about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Actually it's Saturday night and there's better shit to do than split hairs with the morality cops.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Wtf are you all on about?


Apparently, some people enjoy glorifying violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Apparently, some people enjoy glorifying violence.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Tell you what -- if fascists start to take power and all else has failed, maybe then I'll consider violence.


bit late by the time they've actually taken power.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

At least his credentials will be still intact though.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2015)

Unbelievable how much some people can miss the point


----------



## maomao (Jan 17, 2015)

Was the cyclist a fascist? Did hitting him in any way contribute to the struggle against fascism? 

Personally I think shouting abuse at people who break the highway code and put other people's lives in danger does a lot more good for society than gratuitous assaults.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 17, 2015)

Comes back after an hour away.

Sees a shed-load of waste-of-space messages from a troll.

Puts citizen66 on "ignore".

Sorted


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2015)

Who are you again?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Spymaster, you really need to pay close attention to the eggshell skull rule, or you might find yourself in deep trouble some day.



What the fuck are you on about you silly twat? I've made it perfectly clear that I don't go around hitting people.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It wasn't acceptable here but that cyclist who got a slap after chasing down that Audi in London and abusing the driver deserved everything he got.



Anyone driving an Audi needs a slap.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2015)

a_chap said:


> Comes back after an hour away.
> 
> Sees a shed-load of waste-of-space messages from a troll.
> 
> ...



A wise choice.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 18, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Well it wasn't a chunky offroad quad bike - it had two pairs of closely-spaced wheels and was able to bank on corners.
> 
> Apparently there are 3 wheel versions - I'd have to check my footage
> 
> ...



Ah, right, a François Hollande Sex Chariot. I thought you'd spotted the first Yamaha Tesseract in the wild.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Wtf are you all on about?


The Munich putsch, 1923. Hitler was cycling along, when someone in a mercedes nearly hit him with their car. Hitler called the driver a "grosse* scheizer", not a massive insult by today's standards, but calling someone a massive shit in those days was deeply offensive.

Neville Chamberlain was in the passenger seat and just waved his paper at Hitler in a slightly menacing, shaking your fist at the sky, kind of way.

Hitler, as we all know, went on to create the evil Volkswagen, so determined was he to stop people driving mercs, as everyone knows all merc drivers are wankers. He'd probably be turning in his grave knowing that vw own audi, which is the modern merc in that respect.

If only Chamberlain had got out of the car and hit Hitler, we'd never have had the monstrosity of the new vw beetle 

At least, that's what I'm taking from it. I remember my history lessons and that's definitely what happened.

 *fuck knows if there is some way to get a schloss on my phone


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> What the fuck are you on about you silly twat? I've made it perfectly clear that I don't go around hitting people.


You're recommending it as a course of action though.


----------



## Onket (Jan 18, 2015)

Is this carrying on today too, then?!


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 18, 2015)

I'm watching it Onks, its still got legs.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You're recommending it as a course of action though.



Which still makes your pompous advice to me redundant. So poke it.

You and OU would also do well to understand that there are an awful lot of people in the real world who haven't lived their lives wrapped in cotton wool and will quite happily dump you on your arse for screaming abuse into their face.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Which still makes your pompous advice to me redundant. So poke it.
> 
> You and OU would also do well to understand that there are an awful lot of people in the real world who haven't lived their lives wrapped in cotton wool and will quite happily dump you on your arse for screaming abuse into their face.


It certainly doesn't make that advice redundant, pompous or otherwise.  Before you advise people to hit those that annoy them, you might want to hear in mind they will be criminally liable for _any_ consequences, even if those consequences are not reasonably foreseeable.

As for your helpful advice to me -- thank you for your concern, but I don't actually make a habit of screaming in people's faces any more than I make a habit of hitting them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Before you advise people to hit those that annoy them, you might want to hear in mind they will be criminally liable for _any_ consequences, even if those consequences are not reasonably foreseeable.



You can fuck off with the misrepresentation and cod legal advice too. I've advised no one to do anything (except perhaps not to chase strangers down the street screaming abuse at them).


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2015)

So you advise people to not hit others then, unless in self-defence?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Why would I do that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2015)

kabbes said:


> So you advise people to not hit others then, unless in self-defence?


and you'd advise them to not hit people under any circs


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Why would I do that?


Because it's in their best interests


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

I'll leave it to individuals to determine what's in their own best interests.


----------



## Onket (Jan 18, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Because it's in their best interests


Not always.

Obviously.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 18, 2015)

There really is only one way to settle this. My money is on Spy in his dominatrix boots.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 18, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> If we get the rise of Hitler II let's hope we've got kabbes and ou on the team tutting at everyone.



Godwin's law!

Eta: I wasn't the first to notice it.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 18, 2015)

BigTom said:


> The Munich putsch, 1923. Hitler was cycling along, when someone in a mercedes nearly hit him with their car. Hitler called the driver a "grosse* scheizer", not a massive insult by today's standards, but calling someone a massive shit in those days was deeply offensive.
> 
> Neville Chamberlain was in the passenger seat and just waved his paper at Hitler in a slightly menacing, shaking your fist at the sky, kind of way.
> 
> ...



Who can dispute evidence like this?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2015)

isvicthere? said:


> Godwin's law!
> 
> Eta: I wasn't the first to notice it.



Tommy Godwin set the one year world cycling record (75,000 miles), back in the 1930s. Hitler, being the keen cyclist, was always trying to compare himself to Tommy, hence the name of the rule.

(Steve Abraham is currently trying to break this record http://road.cc/content/news/137018-...ms-tommy-godwins-unbreakable-year-record-2015)


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> There really is only one way to settle this. My money is on Spy in his dominatrix boots.



Jackboots, surely?


----------



## scooter (Jan 18, 2015)

Anyway..

In the OP video, I don't get why the cyclist is telling the guy not to use a phone in the first place. I mean, sure, you shouldn't use a phone while driving a car but what's that got to do with the cyclist? It's not his job to enforce the law, he's not the police.

I don't think I'd do that. I may internally tut disapprovingly but I don't think I'd get involved in lecturing drivers about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

scooter said:


> Anyway..
> 
> In the OP video, I don't get why the cyclist is telling the guy not to use a phone in the first place. I mean, sure, you shouldn't use a phone while driving a car but what's that got to do with the cyclist? It's not his job to enforce the law, he's not the police.
> 
> I don't think I'd do that. I may internally tut disapprovingly but I don't think I'd get involved in lecturing drivers about it.


I would if his phone use had led him to not paying attention to his driving and almost knocking me off my bike.


----------



## bemused (Jan 18, 2015)

scooter said:


> Anyway..
> 
> In the OP video, I don't get why the cyclist is telling the guy not to use a phone in the first place. I mean, sure, you shouldn't use a phone while driving a car but what's that got to do with the cyclist? It's not his job to enforce the law, he's not the police.
> 
> I don't think I'd do that. I may internally tut disapprovingly but I don't think I'd get involved in lecturing drivers about it.



There is a little subculture of cyclists who post videos of themselves shouting at drivers and calling out their number plates. Seems a little officious to me.


----------



## campanula (Jan 18, 2015)

To my utter shock, I found myself, at the age of 56, in an altercation with a horribly violent women in our neighbourhood. This person had already attacked several other women and, on this particular day, for no discernible reason, she came over to have a go at me. I was on my bike at the time so turned the wheels towards her. She had a quite insane glint in her eye and started to ask what I was going to do about it. ?? Before I had any rational thoughts, my hand shot out and clasped her throat (while I was thinking what the fuck do I do now...I last had a physical scrap when I was about 11). Thankfully, she backed off at once so I let go and cycled off as fast as I could. The news shot around the neighbourhood and I was quite the hero for a bit although I still feel quite shocked and horrified at what seemed to be an entirely automatic response. Thankfully, she (along with the rest of the terrorising family, including the eldest son who robbed a 96 year old woman) were removed to another part of town.

I never really consider myself to be a total peace type (although I have never hit or smacked any of my children or pets) but I was really surprised at my fury at being threatened and my willingness to engage in a physical way when reason flies out of the window.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2015)

scooter said:


> Anyway..
> 
> In the OP video, I don't get why the cyclist is telling the guy not to use a phone in the first place. I mean, sure, you shouldn't use a phone while driving a car but what's that got to do with the cyclist? It's not his job to enforce the law, he's not the police.
> 
> I don't think I'd do that. I may internally tut disapprovingly but I don't think I'd get involved in lecturing drivers about it.


Because drivers doing shit like using phones puts cyclists in real danger every day and police don't enforce it.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 18, 2015)

bemused said:


> There is a little subculture of cyclists who post videos of themselves shouting at drivers and calling out their number plates. Seems a little officious to me.


It's often difficult to resolve them from the video - personally I've never managed to do it as I'm usually too concerned with braking and steering myself out of danger.
That said, "Sue Perbs" appears to be vying for the Traffic Droid crown as the most annoying cyclecammer in pretending to be the police (I unsubscribed from the Droid ages ago - even before he installed the "selfie-pole")


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Because drivers doing shit like using phones puts cyclists in real danger every day and police don't enforce it.



The police absolutely do enforce it and will nick drivers they see on phones. Other road users shouting at them is pointless. People aren't going to stop driving like dicks because some cyclist tells them to. At best you'll be ignored, at worst you could bring yourself into contact with someone like the psycho in the OP. You're better off concentrating on staying out of their way and completing your journey undamaged, imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

That's dangerously close to victim blaming.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The police absolutely do enforce it and will nick drivers they see on phones. Other road users shouting at them is pointless. People aren't going to stop driving like dicks because some cyclist tells them to. At best you'll be ignored, at worst you could bring yourself into contact with someone like the psycho in the OP. You're better off concentrating on staying out of their way and completing your journey undamaged, imo.



Hear hear.


----------



## fogbat (Jan 18, 2015)

Shocker.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's dangerously close to victim blaming.



Oh please.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh please.


You do seem to suggest that you shouldn't challenge dangerous driving cos you might get lamped by a psycho.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You do seem to suggest that you shouldn't challenge dangerous driving cos you might get lamped by a psycho.



3 points:

a) You might.

b) Your challenge is pointless. It won't change anything.  

c) You're not doing it in a genuine effort to improve their driving. You're doing it because you're cross and want to vent your anger. 

Found the Farringdon clip:


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 18, 2015)

It's like having two or three Clarksons on the boards.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

ChrisFilter said:


> It's like having two or three Clarksons on the boards.



That would be awesome. Some common sense on the boards for once.


----------



## bemused (Jan 18, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> [...] Traffic Droid crown as the most annoying cyclecammer in pretending to be the police (I unsubscribed from the Droid ages ago - even before he installed the "selfie-pole")



That Traffic Droid dude is a fuckwit (at best) who appears to want to incite arguments as click bait for his youtube channel.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> That would be awesome. Some common sense on the boards for once.


Do the mods need any more evidence that Gromit is a pathetic troll and needs to be banished?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> 3 points:
> 
> a) You might.
> 
> ...



Unwise but not deserving of a punch. The driver was most out of order here.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

The driver was a cock. The cyclist was an aggressive cock who got himself punched.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Found the Farringdon clip:



Two behaviours in that clip that exasperate me.

1. Trying to tell a driver what he is doing is wrong as already discussed.
2, Worrying about the cyclists in front slowing him down so trying to get past them. He saved himself all of 10 seconds and got stopped by the next lights so guess what he never got to his destination 10 seconds earlier . Which of course would have made a massive difference to his day. So much so that he wasted more than ten seconds getting out of his car to have a fight so now he has lost time not gained it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The driver was a cock. The cyclist was an aggressive cock who* got himself punched*.


That's the victim blaming, right there


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The driver was a cock. The cyclist was an aggressive cock who got himself punched.



You know, you *still* haven't explained why you brought that incident into this discussion.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's the victim blaming, right there



He wasn't a victim, ya daft hippy. He just got paid out for being an aggressive, abusive prick. If you insist on behaving needlessly aggressively towards others, don't whine when you pick the chap who out-aggresses you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

The Boy said:


> You know, you *still* haven't explained why you brought that incident into this discussion.



You know, I have.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2015)

bemused said:


> There is a little subculture of cyclists who post videos of themselves shouting at drivers and calling out their number plates. Seems a little officious to me.


Sometimes you've just got to put them in their place.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You know, I have.



No you haven't.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Oh yes I have. 

Are we going to go on like this?

He's _behind_ you!


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Perhaps humour me.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The driver was a cock. The cyclist was an aggressive cock who got himself punched.


The cyclist remonstrated with the motorist at the first set of lights. He had made his point as far as it was going to matter in the greater scheme of things. There was no need for him to chase the motorist & make the point a second time. The motorist was a parody of himself, perfectly cast as a thuggish city broker type driving a sporty Audi, the sterotype road raging, on phone while driving, cyclist hater. It almost looks like a put up job.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> He wasn't a victim, ya daft hippy. He just got paid out for being an aggressive, abusive prick. If you insist on behaving needlessly aggressively towards others, don't whine when you pick the chap who out-aggresses you.



Lets replace the big aggressive punchy bloke and put a lone young woman in the car. Is the cyclist's behaviour still acceptable?

Do you think the cyclist would have moderated his behaviour in that situation? If you do you are most likely wrong.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> He wasn't a victim, ya daft hippy. He just got paid out for being an aggressive, abusive prick. If you insist on behaving needlessly aggressively towards others, don't whine when you pick the chap who out-aggresses you.


Stopping in the ASL is an aggressive act in itself. It's basically saying to the cyclists 'I'm quite happy to visibly and obviously break the law in broad daylight because I think you're all pricks'. Back when I was an aggressive cyclist (before the arthritis hit) I'd been known to key cars for doing that. I was a big scary looking fucker and would have been quite happy to back it up. But it's only the cyclist who you're suggesting should wind his neck in, not the aggressive wanker in the car.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Lets replace the big aggressive punchy bloke and put a lone young woman in the car. Is the cyclist's behaviour still acceptable?


Entirely. The first act of aggression comes from the motorist, the cyclist only escalates it and not violently.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Perhaps humour me.



Ok.

My dad works in a cycle wheel factory ........ he's the spokesman. 

How's that?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Sometimes you've just got to put them in their place.



I'm talking about drivers here.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Pretty weak.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Anyway, I'll leave this thread to the impotent Clarksons of the board. Has run its course anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

maomao said:


> But it's only the cyclist who you're suggesting should wind his neck in, not the aggressive wanker in the car.



Bollocks. I've said several times that the driver was a dick. When I've said that, I meant for driving into the ASB, not for twatting the gobshite.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm talking about drivers here.



I know.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks. I've said several times that the driver was a dick. When I've said that, I meant for driving into the ASB, not for twatting gobshite.


Your first post on the matter



			
				A third-rate Clarkson clone said:
			
		

> It wasn't acceptable here but that cyclist who got a slap after chasing down that Audi in London and abusing the driver deserved everything he got.


Doesn't read that way to me.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

maomao said:


> Your first post on the matter
> 
> Doesn't read that way to me.



Then perhaps you should read it again properly and in context with other posts.

Quality username edit btw.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Then perhaps you should read it again properly and in context with other posts.


I've read the whole thread. You're just winding up cyclists for a laugh. I'd think it was fair enough if it wasn't such a pathetic overdone meme.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 18, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Anyway, I'll leave this thread to the impotent Clarksons of the board. Has run its course anyway.


Its nowhere near run its course, we still don't know the final outcome from the incident that caused the thread to be started in the first place.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

maomao said:


> You're just winding up cyclists for a laugh.



I promise you I'm not.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I promise you I'm not.


So if a video existed of a motorist cutting me up badly at the junction of Procter St and High Holborn in about 1997 and getting a padlock through his passenger side window in return would you be saying he deserved what he got?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

maomao said:


> So if a video existed of a motorist cutting me up badly at the junction of Procter St and High Holborn in about 1997 and getting a padlock through his passenger side window in return would you be saying he deserved what he got?



If he did it on purpose I'd say he deserved that and more.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> When I pulled over and got out of the car he took one look at me, changed his mind and rode off.


Must admit, I have a similar reaction when I see your posts on here.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> If he did it on purpose I'd say he deserved that and more.


Well if it was mere incompetence then he didn't deserve a driving license.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Must admit, I have a similar reaction when I see your posts on here.


I think he's deliberately upping the troll levels in an effort to persuade everyone that he was just playing devil's advocate when he spent hours on here defending child abuse the other day.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The police absolutely do enforce it and will nick drivers they see on phones. Other road users shouting at them is pointless. People aren't going to stop driving like dicks because some cyclist tells them to. At best you'll be ignored, at worst you could bring yourself into contact with someone like the psycho in the OP. You're better off concentrating on staying out of their way and completing your journey undamaged, imo.



I don't think they do particularly, or at least the enforcement is extremely ineffective given the number of drivers I see every day using their phones. They don't do anything about close passes, or ASL encroachments (except occasionaly on specific operations) or lots of other similar stuff. Also - and this is slightly aside to the point - police are often proper victim blamers when cyclists do complain to them about a driver, I know a few where people have been riding - correctly - in primary position and been verbally/physically threatened by a driver, and gone to the police and the police have said that they should have been over to the left and they won't take any action. This (and the fact that cyclists are presented with real danger by bad driving (and infrastructure)) is a lot of the reasons why increasing numbers of cyclists aren't happy to leave it to the police and seek to take action themselves (I'm not amongst them btw, and I don't think what the cycle-cammers do is particularly effective and possibly counter-productive (time will tell on both of these), but I'm pretty tempted to fit cameras to my bike so that if I'm in a hit and run, which are disgustingly common when cyclists are involved, I have evidence and so that any time a liveried vehicle does something shitty I can contact the company with video so they can talk to their driver about it).

I do agree that shouting at drivers is pointless, all you do is put someone's back up, make them defensive and any chance you have of making them think about their actions are gone. I don't think I've ever talked to a driver about using a mobile phone, but I do if they pass me close and then I catch up with them at the next lights, or if they are in an ASL and I've seen them roll into it. Always quiet, gentle words, always pointing out that they've broken the highway code and why it's an issue to cyclists. It takes self-control though cos you're exercising, then (with a close pass anyway) put in danger so lots of adrenaline pumping round, and I totally understand why cyclists shout, why they would say these things to a driver.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Unwise but not deserving of a punch. The driver was most out of order here.



Yes, not deserving of a punch, but human nature is human nature.

Once I attempted to cross a road in a hurry as I was late. It was first thing in the morning and I hadn't fully woken up. I heard a scream to my right and it was a cyclist and I froze! I don't know how he did it, but he managed to brake in time....and his bike barely touched me.

I threw my hands in the air and aplogised profoundly with something like "I'm awfully sorry mate, totally my fault I should have made more of an effort there..." - He just shouted back at as loud as he could "Oh fuck off you're just a fucking idiot!"

I don't know how many people have been in a situation like that - but I can tell you...when you're honest an apologetic to people and you're met with abuse...sometimes the urge to punch them in the nose / slap them one or administer a good kicking, is quite overwhelming!

Getting back to our friend in that awfully nice Audi...my revenge would have been to simply hand over the video of the infraction to the old bill.

Had that have been me on the bike, tt the first set of lights, I would have pointed out the protected area for cyclists. But the name calling and swearing? No that never gets you anywhere and besides, London is a bad place to do that...because even if your "opponent" isn't a psycho, he/she might have a lot of bottled-up anger about their shite journey already...and a large tub of lard like me, sat on a bike with my centre of gravity all vulnerable is going to lose against and 8 year old child...much less some aggressive city trader type....quite literally...I'd be a push over!


----------



## free spirit (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The police absolutely do enforce it and will nick drivers they see on phones. Other road users shouting at them is pointless. People aren't going to stop driving like dicks because some cyclist tells them to. At best you'll be ignored, at worst you could bring yourself into contact with someone like the psycho in the OP. You're better off concentrating on staying out of their way and completing your journey undamaged, imo.


I had a cyclist bang on the side of the van when going past on my inside (cycle lane) while I was on the phone barely moving in a traffic jam.

Pissed me off given that I'd seen him in my mirror and actually pulled out slightly to give him more room, so obviously was paying attention. Sanctimonious twat


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

maomao said:


> I think he's deliberately upping the troll levels in an effort to persuade everyone that he was just playing devil's advocate when he spent hours on here defending child abuse the other day.



Only i never did. Plus technically the person you refer to was cleared of child abuse but prosecuted for portraying a position of trust (with someone above the age of consent).


----------



## The Boy (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> prosecuted for portraying a position of trust



In painting, or interpretive dance?


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

The Boy said:


> In painting, or interpretive dance?



Whoops typo.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 18, 2015)

The guy in that Farringdon incident drives into the guy's foot when he pulls away the first time, that's why he chases him down and has a go. It's not clear on the video but was explained at the time it was first posted.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The guy in that Farringdon incident drives into the guy's foot when he pulls away the first time, that's why he chases him down and has a go. It's not clear on the video but was explained at the time it was first posted.



And whose fault is that when your foot is in front of a wheel of a car that's waiting to pull away from a junction?

A sore foot and a sore jaw. Superman didn't have a great day did he?


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> Only i never did. Plus technically the person you refer to was cleared of child abuse but prosecuted for portraying a position of trust (with someone above the age of consent).


He was convicted of sex with a child in his care. And you seem to think that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> And whose fault is it when your foot is in front of a wheel of a car that's waiting to pull away from a junction?
> 
> A sore foot and a sore jaw. Superman didn't have a great day did he?


Don't be a silly billy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

You're right.

He was more like a rubbish Equaliser.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> If he did it on purpose I'd say he deserved that and more.


Macho dickhead. Yay vigilante violence! Wanker.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Macho dickhead. Yay vigilante violence! Wanker.



Why didn't respond that way to Maomao, who actually _did it_ ?????

You really are a fucking wally, OU. And then some.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Why didn't respond that way to Maomao, who actually _did_ it ?????
> 
> You really are a fucking wally, OU, and then some.


I think Maomao actually acknowledges that it was shoddy behaviour, yet you are overtly condoning as if it was some sort of natural justice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I think Maomao actually acknowledges that it was shoddy behaviour ....



I don't know why you think that. He's posted nothing whatsoever to that effect, but I can see that it's convenient for you to suggest it. I think that had the arthritis not kicked-in, Maomao may well still be out there keying cars and smashing windows.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I think Maomao actually acknowledges that it was shoddy behaviour, yet you are overtly condoning as if it was some sort of natural justice.


If the driver hadn't shat his pants and driven through a red light to get away I may well have done time for it as the whole thing was seen by a copper.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I think that had the arthritis not kicked-in, Maomao may well still be out there keying cars and smashing windows.


I'd like to think not. But I was very very aggressive when I was a courier. Combination of age, loads of adrenaline, pressure to earn money by being fast and feeling under constant attack from cars. I was much calmer when I was commuting to an office job.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 18, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Tommy Godwin set the one year world cycling record (75,000 miles), back in the 1930s. Hitler, being the keen cyclist, was always trying to compare himself to Tommy, hence the name of the rule.
> 
> (Steve Abraham is currently trying to break this record http://road.cc/content/news/137018-...ms-tommy-godwins-unbreakable-year-record-2015)



Can I just point out that Steve Abraham left his job (warehouse worker) and is spending his life savings to finance his world record attempt.

You can be part of this (utterly bonkers) effort by chipping a few quid in (a fiver buys him breakfast) here - http://oneyeartimetrial.org.uk/

I went out for a bike ride today (135 miles) and it's fucking cold out there. I'm still defrosting my toes. At the time of writing this (10pm) Steve's still on his bike and will probably get near 200 miles again today. Since Jan 1st he's already ridden over 3,000 miles.

The man's mad. Help him make history.


----------



## T & P (Jan 18, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The police absolutely do enforce it and will nick drivers they see on phones. Other road users shouting at them is pointless. People aren't going to stop driving like dicks because some cyclist tells them to. At best you'll be ignored, at worst you could bring yourself into contact with someone like the psycho in the OP. You're better off concentrating on staying out of their way and completing your journey undamaged, imo.


 There might be another school of thought out there that subscribes to the idea that reckless drivers are putting lives at risk needlessly, and as such it is both justified and for the greater good if such wrongdoers are given a stern talking to, as some of them will certainly think twice before behaving like dicks again.

Needless to say not all drivers would react in the same way, and it'd be best if the cyclist can handle himself if he's to resort to such tactics.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 18, 2015)

T & P said:


> and for the greater good if such wrongdoers are given a stern talking to, as some of them will certainly think twice before behaving like dicks again.



That will work will it?  

lol!

No one ever ever in a million years ever ever think twice because a stranger tells them off.... Ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 18, 2015)

Gromit said:


> That will work will it?
> 
> lol!
> 
> No one ever ever in a million years ever ever think twice because a stranger tells them off.... Ever.


That's not true at all.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 18, 2015)

My observation is that hardly anyone ever points out to these people that they're being arses - I suppose it's the British way - personally I feel worse if I don't at least sound my horn - though I suspect they wonder where the noise comes from a lot of the time ... so I usually combine it with flashing my front light from hell.


----------



## coley (Jan 18, 2015)

Now I'm a motorist not a cyclist but based on me observations of cyclists V motorists,then cyclists should be required to ( at the minimum) wear high viz vests, adequate lights, a bell and when these prove insufficient a sawn off and a small supply of fragmentation grenades.


----------



## T & P (Jan 19, 2015)

Gromit said:


> That will work will it?
> 
> lol!
> 
> No one ever ever in a million years ever ever think twice because a stranger tells them off.... Ever.


I disagree. If not out of apprehension, certainly out of contempt. 'Oh look, a cyclist'. I'd better give him a really wide berth, lest he throws a tantrum like the one the other week shouting that I'd overtaken him too close. Fucking prima donnas that they are'.

An altercation with a cyclist will certainly stick on the minds of many drivers. And most of those drivers are likely drive with a different mindset around cyclists whenever their past confrontation comes to their minds.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 19, 2015)

T & P said:


> I disagree. If not out of apprehension, certainly out of contempt. 'Oh look, a cyclist'. I'd better give him a really wide berth, lest he throws a tantrum like the one the other week shouting that I'd overtaken him too close. Fucking prima donnas that they are'.
> 
> An altercation with a cyclist will certainly stick on the minds of many drivers. And most of those drivers are likely drive with a different mindset around cyclists whenever their past confrontation comes to their minds.


Yeah, this.


----------



## bemused (Jan 19, 2015)

T & P said:


> An altercation with a cyclist will certainly stick on the minds of many drivers. And most of those drivers are likely drive with a different mindset around cyclists whenever their past confrontation comes to their minds.



It'll stick in their minds, I'm not sure in the positive context you're suggesting.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> Now I'm a motorist not a cyclist but based on me observations of cyclists V motorists,then cyclists should be required to ( at the minimum) wear high viz vests, adequate lights, a bell and when these prove insufficient a sawn off and a small supply of fragmentation grenades.


Cyclists are required to have red rear light & reflector, white front light & reflector at night (from when the sun is no longer visible in sky). Flashing lights are legal on bicycles.

Bells are required to be on bikes at point of sale but not afterwards.

There's no evidence, afaik, that shows that wearing hi vis improves safety for cyclists and emphasis should be on reflectives anyway as hi vis is of minimal usage in the dark. What evidence there is on this suggests that unless your hi vis had "polite" or "police" on the back it makes no difference to the space drivers give you (I always wear hi vis with reflective strips in poor visibility). 
The best way to make yourself visible is by correctly positioning yourself on the road, gutter + hi vis is less visible than secondary/primary + no hi vis because drivers don't look in the gutter (or at secondary much, hence using primary at side roads).

If you want to make cycling safer, the only really effective measure is to build a safe space for cycling on our roads. Iirc you're 7 times more likely to die cycling on the uk than in NL.
Driver and cyclist training will go some way to helping.
Everything else is just pissing in the wind.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 19, 2015)

anyone cuts me up when I'm on sharon I will bang them out


----------



## fogbat (Jan 19, 2015)

Gromit said:


> That will work will it?
> 
> lol!
> 
> No one ever ever in a million years ever ever think twice because a stranger tells them off.... Ever.


You should try it sometime.


----------



## xenon (Jan 19, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> anyone cuts me up when I'm on sharon I will bang them out


 Lol at naming your bike Sharon.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 19, 2015)

T & P said:


> I disagree. If not out of apprehension, certainly out of contempt. 'Oh look, a cyclist'. I'd better give him a really wide berth, lest he throws a tantrum like the one the other week shouting that I'd overtaken him too close. Fucking prima donnas that they are'.
> 
> An altercation with a cyclist will certainly stick on the minds of many drivers. And most of those drivers are likely drive with a different mindset around cyclists whenever their past confrontation comes to their minds.



There's a significant proportion of drivers who don't give a shit if you live or die. One's limited mental bandwidth is best expended in observing and reacting rather deluding yourself you can change the behaviour of drivers by a structured program of consciousness raising by shouting at strangers.

Did the guy featured in the video expose himself to more or less risk by deciding to appoint himself mobile phone monitor?


----------



## T & P (Jan 19, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> There's a significant proportion of drivers who don't give a shit if you live or die. One's limited mental bandwidth is best expended in observing and reacting rather deluding yourself you can change the behaviour of drivers by a structured program of consciousness raising by shouting at strangers.
> 
> Did the guy featured in the video expose himself to more or less risk by deciding to appoint himself mobile phone monitor?


Oh, he'd put himself at more risk. But look where the driver is at now. Vilified, possibly looking at prosecution, his firm suspended from its trade association and likely losing business. Perhaps even losing his job as a result. My betting would be on that driver thinking twice before being being caught talking on his mobile whilst driving again, let alone knocking a cyclist off and punching him, for the rest of his fucking life.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 19, 2015)

No update I can find on whether the cyclist has come forward yet. I wonder if the van driver can still get nicked for various offences driving & assault related just on the strength of the video or will the case be dropped if cyclist does not come forward?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Cyclists are required to have red rear light & reflector, white front light & reflector at night (from when the sun is no longer visible in sky). Flashing lights are legal on bicycles.
> 
> Bells are required to be on bikes at point of sale but not afterwards.
> 
> ...



Tbh, Tom, you and I don't really disagree on much. Any time I've come close to making contact with a cyclist it's been because I haven't seen him til late or he's pulled a stupid manoeuvre without warning. Lights are obviously key. The number of cyclist without them (or with "suicide lights"- ridiculously tiny but at least you're still legal, eh?) in London is staggering. All riders should really make themselves aware of just how difficult they are to see sometimes.

I do disagree on the hi-viz though. I find it most helpful when I spot a cyclist from quarter of a mile away. The only downside I'd imagine is that you don't all wear them so the driver's attention may be drawn to the hi-viz fella quarter of a mile away and away from the two non-hi viz cyclists behind him.

Reflective gear at night should be a no-brainer for all road cyclists.

On your previous post, I don't think anyone can reasonably, violently object to someone politely pointing out an error. My posts on that have mainly been about cyclists who vigorously abuse people and call them "FUCKING PRICK!". They're asking to get lamped and shouldn't moan when it happens.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> My observation is that hardly anyone ever points out to these people that they're being arses - I suppose it's the British way - personally I feel worse if I don't at least sound my horn - though I suspect they wonder where the noise comes from a lot of the time ... so I usually combine it with flashing my front light from hell.



So here we have a cyclist openly boasting about breaking the Highway Code because he'd "feel worse" if he didn't. 

Who's going to be taken more seriously, BigTom and a polite word or GG flashing and tooting like an explosion in a funfair?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Tbh, Tom, you and I don't really disagree on much. Any time I've come close to making contact with a cyclist it's been because I haven't seen him til late or he's pulled a stupid manoeuvre without warning. Lights are obviously key. The number of cyclist without them (or with "suicide lights"- ridiculously tiny but at least you're still legal, eh?) in London is staggering. All riders should really make themselves aware of just how difficult they are to see sometimes.
> 
> I do disagree on the hi-viz though. I find it most helpful when I spot a cyclist from quarter of a mile away. The only downside I'd imagine is that you don't all wear them so the driver's attention may be drawn to the hi-viz fella quarter of a mile away and away from the two non-hi viz cyclists behind him.
> 
> ...


Victim blaming again. Asking for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Victim blaming again. Asking for it.



You're an idiot. Shouldn't be allowed out of the hippy commune.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Victim blaming again. Asking for it.


No,he's got a point, as a motorist I would hold my hands up if I made a mistake involving a cyclist, if I was then confronted by aggression then I would automatically change from apologetic to defensive.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You're an idiot. Shouldn't be allowed out of the hippy commune.


I'm not sure where you get this 'hippy' nonsense. Not being a macho vigilante dickhead doesn't make one a hippy.


----------



## T & P (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> On your previous post, I don't think anyone can reasonably, violently object to someone politely pointing out an error. My posts on that have mainly been about cyclists who vigorously abuse people and call them "FUCKING PRICK!". They're asking to get lamped and shouldn't moan when it happens.


 Depending on what the incident in question might have been, perhaps it is the driver who deserves to get lamped, and should therefore be _grateful_ that he's only been called a fucking prick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> No,he's got a point, as a motorist I would hold my hands up if I made a mistake involving a cyclist, if I was then confronted by aggression then I would automatically change from apologetic to defensive.


I agree that it's a bad idea to be so confrontational - it's not a great way to make your point, but you don't deserve to be assaulted for swearing at someone who had almost killed you with a massive lump of metal that they're responsible for.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I agree that it's a bad idea to be so confrontational - it's not a great way to make your point, but you don't deserve to be assaulted for swearing at someone who had almost killed you with a massive lump of metal that they're responsible for.



You don't. But that's not what happened in the Farringdon vid, is it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure where you get this 'hippy' nonsense. Not being a macho vigilante dickhead doesn't make one a hippy.



No, but not appreciating the potential consequences of abusive interactions with total strangers strongly suggests a closeted, rose-tinted view of the world, likely to have been picked up around a campfire during lentil weaving sessions and _love the world_ songs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You don't. But that's not what happened in the Farringdon vid, is it?


Yes it was


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

You haven't watched it then.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I agree that it's a bad idea to be so confrontational - it's not a great way to make your point, but you don't deserve to be assaulted for swearing at someone who had almost killed you with a massive lump of metal that they're responsible for.


The motorist didn't almost kill the cyclist with his car though, even when he drove into the cycle box at the first set of lights he was well away from the cylists even though he was in breach of the law, it was the cyclist that approached him to remonstrate, he did not need to put himself at risk of being hit by the car. We are not 'victim blaming' here its just about common sense. Whatever else happened here the cyclist became the victim when the motorist got out & thumped him. At the first lights, if the motorist did hit the cyclist then there was no need for the cyclist to have put himself in that position.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You haven't watched it then.


Yes I have


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The guy in that Farringdon incident drives into the guy's foot when he pulls away the first time, that's why he chases him down and has a go. It's not clear on the video but was explained at the time it was first posted.


Ahem


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Ahem



"Nearly killed"?

And again, who's fault is it when your foot gets run over because you've placed it in front of a wheel of a car at a junction?

Clown.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> "Nearly killed"?
> 
> And again, who's fault is it when your foot gets run over because you've placed it in front of a wheel of a car at a junction?
> 
> Clown.


It always feels like you've nearly been squished. He was in an ALS and the driver drove into him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

No. He was in the asb and the driver drove away. It's not the drivers responsibility to check that no cunt has his foot under the wheel every time he moves foreword.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Tbh, Tom, you and I don't really disagree on much. Any time I've come close to making contact with a cyclist it's been because I haven't seen him til late or he's pulled a stupid manoeuvre without warning. Lights are obviously key. The number of cyclist without them (or with "suicide lights"- ridiculously tiny but at least you're still legal, eh?) in London is staggering. All riders should really make themselves aware of just how difficult they are to see sometimes.
> 
> I do disagree on the hi-viz though. I find it most helpful when I spot a cyclist from quarter of a mile away. The only downside I'd imagine is that you don't all wear them so the driver's attention may be drawn to the hi-viz fella quarter of a mile away and away from the two non-hi viz cyclists behind him.
> 
> Reflective gear at night should be a no-brainer for all road cyclists.



I think there needs to be better regulation around bike light's brightness, I'm not sure if there's anything at the moment (except light sensitive epilepsy regs around flashing lights), though there's the problem of angles as well as brightness and I don't know how important that is or how you regulate it.
I find hi-vis to be of marginal use (in terms of others wearing it) tbh, when visibility is good there shouldn't be any problem seeing a cyclist, when it's poor, I see lights and reflectives before I see hi-vis. Flashing lights (used alongside steady ones) tell me it's a bicycle rather than a motorbike or car with one headlight out.

My main issues around hi-vis are that (a) we should be talking about infrastructure and (b) _cyclists should wear hi-vis_ turns into _that cyclist wasn't wearing hi-vis so it's their fault they got killed _(even though it was a lovely sunny afternoon, or they had lights on and were on a road with streetlights or whatever that means it was clearly the drivers fault)_._

There's also a wider, more difficult, consideration of the "safety in numbers" argument, which proposes - absolutely logically - that if there are more cyclists on the road, it will be safer for cyclists (because drivers will look more for cyclists/be more expectant of them; because more cyclists means we're more likely to get proper infrastructure; because more drivers are also cyclists and understand what cyclists should and will do and because more cyclists means less drivers and therefore less danger).

Does wearing hi-vis discourage people from cycling? I would say yes, both in terms of increasing the perception of risk around cycling, and because needing specialist clothing is off putting (yeah I know, hi-vis vest isn't particularly specialist but still lots of people will need to go and buy one - and many more will think they need to spend £50-£100 on a hi-vis cycling jacket they'll wear to do nothing else) and because people don't want to go out in hi-vis (bar a few ravers) so if you go to the pub/club you need to deal with this extra piece of clothing, and because people think they look stupid wearing hi-vis and they don't want to look stupid.

Is the discouragement effect stronger than the increased visibility of wearing hi-vis? who the fuck knows. No way of testing really, let alone there being any evidence of it. We can definitely say that hi-vis discourages but not by how much, nor could say that if no-one wore hi-vis we'd see X% increase in cycling and that would lead to Y% decrease in collisions, which is greater/smaller than the Z% decrease in collisions as a result of people wearing hi-vis.

The one thing that we can say for certain is that in the safest places to cycle in the world - the Netherlands and Denmark - nobody, bar builders (etc) on their way to work, wears hi-vis, because in those places, they have done the things that are actually needed to make cycling (as transport) as safe as possible.



> On your previous post, I don't think anyone can reasonably, violently object to someone politely pointing out an error. My posts on that have mainly been about cyclists who vigorously abuse people and call them "FUCKING PRICK!". They're asking to get lamped and shouldn't moan when it happens.



I did watch that video again when you posted it, I haven't watched it again to reply to this. The cyclist has a polite word with the driver who has pulled into the ASL and sort of around two cyclists who went into the ASL, presumably because the driver was annoyed that the cyclists were using the ASL as they should do according to the highway code. It's a very aggressive move on the part of the driver, it won't get them anywhere and I think put them into the oncoming traffic lane so when the lights go green they may have to pull sharply back into the two cyclists they are edging around.
No driver should move away with someone so close to their car unless they are 100% certain that person is out of their way. It's entirely possible that the cyclist didn't have their foot in front of the tyre but that as the driver straightened up, their rear wheel ran over the cyclists foot, I don't think you see it clearly in the video.
The sequence of violence begins with the driver, either with their aggressive, threatening behaviour by moving into the ASL (equivalent to the shouting imo), or with their actual violence in running over the cyclist's foot, not with the cyclist shouting at the driver.
You're just looking for ways to blame the cyclist rather than the driver on this specific one imo.
I tend to agree with you on the sentiment that if you're going to give it large, then you need to be ready to take it too, but I think you're off with this one.

(edit: loads of posts in between me starting to type this and posting it)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Let's also note yet again that he's doing this on a thread about a totally different incident.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

might is right! you MUST remember that OU
car driving is normal and cycling is not, you must take your place in the pecking order, listen to the big men here!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No. He was in the asb and the driver drove away. It's not the drivers responsibility to check that no cunt has his foot under the wheel every time he moves foreword.



Yeah it is! Driver is responsible for their actions, you don't drive away with someone so close to you unless you are sure you won't hit them doing so, come on. No way the driver was unaware of the cyclist.
going to find the vid and watch it again in a second.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes I have


My sympathies were for the cyclist but, and this is just common sense, if you are going to provoke someone make sure you can take it it's conclusion, I felt embarrassed for the poor bugger in the end.
Far better he just keyed the posh car and skeddaddled.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 19, 2015)

It doesn't matter how much fucking high-vis you're wearing, some drivers won't see you simply because they're not looking for cyclists. They're looking for cars so their eyes pass over you but their brain doesn't compute the information as relevant. There's a T-junction beside my work and I've lost count of the number of times a driver has pulled out from it and nearly hit me as I'm test riding a bike. You can see them look right, look left, look right again and just pull out because there's no car there.


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> And again, who's fault is it when your foot gets run over because you've placed it in front of a wheel of a car at a junction?



The driver's. According to the Highway code. You're not allowed to deliberately run over someone's foot even if they are being reckless and stupid.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Look at this picture. The driver was sat behind the ASL, where they should be, until the second cyclist pulled into it, then moved forward into this position. The cyclist on the right is the one who moves backwards and taps on their window and says "this is a cycle area" in a quiet voice (or words close to that).

I can see 3 life threatening hazards that are an issue now that the audi driver has pulled into the ASL, which weren't beforehand. can you Spymaster ?

This behaviour is really threatening. I would have felt threatened by it, I would either have had a word like the cyclist did, or I would have moved out to the right further in front of the driver. I'm not going to tell you why yet, because I want to know if you understand why a cyclist would feel threatened by this behaviour. I'm guessing that you don't cycle around a busy city on a day to day basis, so you won't understand why this behaviour on its own is threatening, nor how these things build up day after day, week after week. There's always the hope that drivers do it because they don't know, but sometimes I think they are just selfish cunts. Which is even more frustrating when you know their behaviour gains them absolutely nothing (in this case the cyclists caught up with the driver at the next set of lights - time gained = zero, lives threatened = 5).


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2015)

weepiper said:


> It doesn't matter how much fucking high-vis you're wearing, some drivers won't see you simply because they're not looking for cyclists. They're looking for cars so their eyes pass over you but their brain doesn't compute the information as relevant. There's a T-junction beside my work and I've lost count of the number of times a driver has pulled out from it and nearly hit me as I'm test riding a bike. You can see them look right, look left, look right again and just pull out because there's no car there.


Indeed and this is also a problem that motorcyclists face. For all the "Think Bike" signs all over the place, you'd think that drivers would change their behaviour but no...


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster, it's victim blaming because you're saying the cyclist deserved to get punched because the cyclist remonstrated with but you're not saying the driver deserved to be remonstrated with because he deliberately made an illegal and provocative manoeuvre. Both can be true, nether can be true or on a 'no violence' basis the second can be true but not the first but it just doesn't work your way round.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> No,he's got a point, as a motorist I would hold my hands up if I made a mistake involving a cyclist, if I was then confronted by aggression then I would automatically change from apologetic to defensive.



My experience is that motorists act aggressively and defensively whether you have a quiet polite word or give them a mouthful of abuse.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

when i have been pointlessly, dangerously and aggressively passed by cars who can be easily caught up with a little while down the road in traffic or at lights i have sometimes said to them "that was worth it then" and the dumfounded look on their face, sometimes with a bit of embarrassment show that safety just does not occur to them, there is something in their way and they're getting round it, that's all that is important.
obviously a lot of these people don't like this and their futile maneuvers pointed out


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Remember people, you are responsible for a driver's action, as this sticker (produced by the Road Haulage Association) clearly informs us. 






Does beg the question - how does someone get into the car if they are not allowed to walk anywhere near it? unicycles? Pogo sticks?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

the car is king! all hail the car/lorry/van


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 19, 2015)

I'm reminded of when a new lower 50 mph speed limit was introduced on a road around here.  Someone,  I assume a motorist, got a can of spray paint and vandalised them all.

Of course the signs must have deserved it for having the audacity of telling the motorist of what to do.  Doubtless the culprit also punched some of the deliberately provocative signs.  That will learn them.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No. He was in the asb and the driver drove away. It's not the drivers responsibility to check that no cunt has his foot under the wheel every time he moves foreword.



Yes it is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> My sympathies were for the cyclist but, and this is just common sense, if you are going to provoke someone make sure you can take it it's conclusion, I felt embarrassed for the poor bugger in the end.
> Far better he just keyed the posh car and skeddaddled.


What is its conclusion? Surely it should stop at words being exchanged


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What is its conclusion? Surely it should stop at words being exchanged


In a perfect world? of course, but I suspect driving or cycling in London is an immense source of tension and stress and we all know how these two are often expressed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What is its conclusion? Surely it should stop at words being exchanged


if not insurance details


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What is its conclusion?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> In a perfect world? of course, but I suspect driving or cycling in London is an immense source of tension and stress and we all know how these two are often expressed.


Agreed. Doesn't justify whacking someone for swearing at them cos they tried to run over your foot for having the temerity to get in front of the in an ALS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Agreed. Doesn't justify whacking someone for swearing at them cos they tried to run over your foot for having the temerity to get in front of the in an ALS.


i think you're unnecessarily confusing the chain of events.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Agreed. Doesn't justify whacking someone for swearing at them cos they tried to run over your foot for having the temerity to get in front of the in an ALS.


True, looking at the video Audi man seems to have come out swinging, no attempt at reconciliation.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 19, 2015)

Clown.[/QUOTE]


Spirit Of Slade said:


> Yes, not deserving of a punch, but human nature is human nature.
> 
> Once I attempted to cross a road in a hurry as I was late. It was first thing in the morning and I hadn't fully woken up. I heard a scream to my right and it was a cyclist and I froze! I don't know how he did it, but he managed to brake in time....and his bike barely touched me.
> 
> ...



Human nature is human nature, I agree. It's human nature to swear and curse when someone came close to killing you.

Great that you apologised, but the cyclist's system was probably still in the "ohfuckohfuck" mode rather than "let's talk about this civilly" because as bad as it looked to you, it would have looked worse to them.



Spymaster said:


> "Nearly killed"?
> 
> And again, who's fault is it when your foot gets run over because you've placed it in front of a wheel of a car at a junction?



A bit of yours (you should keep your foot out of the way), a bit of theirs (they should wait till you've left before they leave), a bit on road planning (bet the cyclist wouldn't have had his foot there given a choice). More on the motorist just because they're the one with a big thing that hurts people and they're the ones who are legally obliged to wait.

I haven't been able to cycle for a couple of years, and my GF has never cycled in London really, and I do sometimes find myself pointing out things like "yes, the cyclist is in the middle of the lane. That's because that's the only safe place. There are cars on either side and they could all open their doors at any time. Also, they're not actually slowing us down because a car would take up the same space and you wouldn't be annoyed at them." Etc. 

She is far more cycle-aware and pedestrian-aware than most drivers (like taxi drivers) I've ever encountered, though. TBH I'm pretty amazed that she hasn't hit any of the many pedestrians who walk into traffic with no warning. Yet.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

maomao said:


> Spymaster, it's victim blaming because you're saying the cyclist deserved to get punched because the cyclist remonstrated with but you're not saying the driver deserved to be remonstrated with because he deliberately made an illegal and provocative manoeuvre. Both can be true, nether can be true or on a 'no violence' basis the second can be true but not the first but it just doesn't work your way round.



Nope. Selective reading again.

I've said that I think remonstrating with drivers is pointless and potentially dangerous. Not that he shouldn't have been spoken to. That's up to you. 

The driver fucked up, I've said that many times. He should be done for infringing the asb or even spoken to politely if you're feeling lucky. 

However, everything that happened after the driver pulled away was the cyclists fault and if you scream "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" into a strangers face, for whatever reason, you've escalated the situation to one where a slap becomes a real possibility and can't whinge if you get one.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

The moral of the story is definitely: avoid London.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2015)

In my experience, it's Audi, Mercedes and BMW drivers who tend to be the most aggressive. The car, in this case, is regarded as a symbol of prestige and the driver of these vehicles believe they have a point to prove. This sense of entitlement manifests itself in aggressive driving, encroachment of ASBs, driving in bus/cycle lanes and jumping red lights. Oddly enough, the drivers of 4-wheel drives are the best behaved.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 19, 2015)

Every once in a blue moon when I'm out riding I'll get someone in something like a white Audi 4x4 with personal plates being unusually patient or polite with me, and I _always_ think they're just being sarcastic or taking the piss.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

coley said:


> Now I'm a motorist not a cyclist but based on me observations of cyclists V motorists,then cyclists should be required to ( at the minimum) wear high viz vests, adequate lights, a bell and when these prove insufficient a sawn off and a small supply of fragmentation grenades.



I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Oh, you're a motorist. I fucked that one up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


quoted for posterity


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> In my experience, it's Audi, Mercedes and BMW drivers who tend to be the most aggressive. The car, in this case, is regarded as a symbol of prestige and the driver of these vehicles believe they have a point to prove. This sense of entitlement manifests itself in aggressive driving, encroachment of ASBs, driving in bus/cycle lanes and jumping red lights. Oddly enough, the drivers of 4-wheel drives are the best behaved.


of course it's not like drivers of german cars are alone in this. cyclists are famous for ...

not to mention you don't say whether the bus lanes were in fact in operation when you observed these drivers in them: not all bus lanes are permanently closed to car drivers. plus if they're in fact minicabs i suspect they're entitled to use them - taxis certainly do.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, you're a motorist. I fucked that one up.


But not a militant one, or a militant vegetarian, so your right you've fucked up


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


I'm a non miltant cyclist/veggie.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> In my experience, it's Audi, Mercedes and BMW drivers who tend to be the most aggressive. The car, in this case, is regarded as a symbol of prestige and the driver of these vehicles believe they have a point to prove. This sense of entitlement manifests itself in aggressive driving, encroachment of ASBs, driving in bus/cycle lanes and jumping red lights. Oddly enough, the drivers of 4-wheel drives are the best behaved.



Also very true on the motorway.
Regards Coley, freelander driver


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Yeah it is! Driver is responsible for their actions, you don't drive away with someone so close to you unless you are sure you won't hit them doing so, come on. No way the driver was unaware of the cyclist.
> going to find the vid and watch it again in a second.



Look at the video again around 24 seconds and think of what the driver can see.

Superman is leaning down to the window with his body about 2ft away from the car when it drives away. The driver can't know that he's tipped his bike and stuck his foot out. The car also drives away straight and I'm unconvinced he made any contact at all anyway. Superman doesn't shout or otherwise look like someone who's just had their foot mashed by a motor. In fact a few seconds later he's pedaling like fury to catch the car, quite unlike someone with a squashed foot. And listen to what he says to the driver when he catches up after "you fucking prick". Is that "you _nearly_ ran over my foot"?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Agreed. Doesn't justify whacking someone for swearing at them cos they tried to run over your foot for having the temerity to get in front of the in an ALS.



Give over, you hysterical minge.


----------



## Cid (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Look at the video again around 24 seconds and think of what the driver can see.
> 
> Superman is leaning down to the window with his body about 2ft away from the car when it drives away. The driver can't know that he's tipped his bike and stuck his foot out. The car also drives away straight and I'm unconvinced he made any contact at all anyway. Superman doesn't shout or otherwise look like someone who's just had their foot mashed by a motor. In fact a few seconds later he's pedaling like fury to catch the car, quite unlike someone with a squashed foot. And listen to what he says to the driver when he catches up after "you fucking prick". Is that "you _nearly_ ran over my foot"?



Only a complete fucking idiot/wanker would accelerate like that with someone right next to their window. Regardless of foot placement.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Cid said:


> Only a complete fucking idiot/wanker would accelerate like that with someone right next to their window. Regardless of foot placement.



Yep. But we've already established that the driver's a wanker.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Yep. But we've already established that the driver's a wanker.


But you're still contending that he was right to lamp the cyclist...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


Which ones are they then?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Look at the video again around 24 seconds and think of what the driver can see.
> 
> Superman is leaning down to the window with his body about 2ft away from the car when it drives away. The driver can't know that he's tipped his bike and stuck his foot out. The car also drives away straight and I'm unconvinced he made any contact at all anyway. Superman doesn't shout or otherwise look like someone who's just had their foot mashed by a motor. In fact a few seconds later he's pedaling like fury to catch the car, quite unlike someone with a squashed foot. And listen to what he says to the driver when he catches up after "you fucking prick". Is that "you _nearly_ ran over my foot"?



So now it's not that the cyclist should have had their foot out of the way, but that you don't think that the cyclist got their foot run over at all? And if the driver can't see that it's clear, he shouldn't be moving - it's on the driver to ensure that somewhere is clear before they drive that way, if they can't see they shouldn't drive. With someone that close to you, you must be sure they are clear, not just have the absence of knowledge (or ability) to see that they aren't clear.

tbh, you can't really see what happens when the driver pulls away, and whether they went straight until they were fully past the cyclist, but let's say they did, and that they didn't run over the cyclist's foot, do you realise how scary & threatening it is to have a driver pull away from you that close? Do you get how having this kind of thing happen day after day after day with apparently no recognition from drivers that yes they have actually put you in a place where you could easily be seriously harmed, or that doing so gave them nothing at all? I'll avoid shouting, because like I've said it's pointless or counterproductive, but I totally understand why someone else would shout and I've done it in the past myself. I'd rather remain focused on the driver in this situation, who does something which actually puts other people at risk of serious physical injury, in contravention to the highway code, and quite deliberately (ie: it's not a momentary lapse of of error to enter the ASL).

In any case, it's the pulling into the ASL and sort of around the cyclists that I think is equivalent to shouting at the driver. It's always the driver/passenger who escalates the situation, not the cyclist.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> "Nearly killed"?
> 
> And again, who's fault is it when your foot gets run over because you've placed it in front of a wheel of a car at a junction?
> 
> Clown.



Tbf, going cycling in clowns shoes _is_ asking for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> But you're still contending that he was right to lamp the cyclist...



I'm saying that the cyclist deserved the clump for the "you fucking prick" screamed into his face, yes. 

I'd have thought you'd have figured this out by now, Poindexter.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Look at the video again around 24 seconds and think of what the driver can see.
> 
> Superman is leaning down to the window with his body about 2ft away from the car when it drives away. The driver can't know that he's tipped his bike and stuck his foot out. The car also drives away straight and I'm unconvinced he made any contact at all anyway. Superman doesn't shout or otherwise look like someone who's just had their foot mashed by a motor. In fact a few seconds later he's pedaling like fury to catch the car, quite unlike someone with a squashed foot. And listen to what he says to the driver when he catches up after "you fucking prick". Is that "you _nearly_ ran over my foot"?



You sound like a dangerous driver.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 19, 2015)

I see spymaster has managed to get a few more pages out of an incident that has nothing to do with the one in the OP.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Poindexter? 
I don't think he deserves being lamped for swearing at an aggressive driver breaking the law and driving dangerously. It's a no brainer!


----------



## Cid (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Poindexter?
> I don't think he deserves being lamped for swearing at an aggressive driver breaking the law and driving dangerously. It's a no brainer!


----------



## Cid (Jan 19, 2015)

He's saying you're intelligent, creative, have a spaceship and are friends with a talking cat.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 19, 2015)

I'm all for #teamcyclist, though surely if you walk up to someone calling them a 'fucking prick', you are fully entitled to expect some retaliation. Within zones 1-6 you can probably guarantee this can, and will, be physical. To act all shocked at this is rather silly, no?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> I'm all for #teamcyclist, though surely if you walk up to someone calling them a 'fucking prick', you are fully entitled to expect some retaliation. Within zones 1-6 you can probably guarantee this can, and will, be physical. To act all shocked at this is rather silly, no?


That's not the same as saying somebody 'deserves' a slap


----------



## Onket (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'm saying that the cyclist deserved the clump for the "you fucking prick" screamed into his face, yes.
> 
> I'd have thought you'd have figured this out by now, Poindexter.


He is likely to argue with you forever about it, whether he's worked it out or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> So now it's not that the cyclist should have had their foot out of the way, but that you don't think that the cyclist got their foot run over at all? And if the driver can't see that it's clear, he shouldn't be moving - it's on the driver to ensure that somewhere is clear before they drive that way, if they can't see they shouldn't drive. With someone that close to you, you must be sure they are clear, not just have the absence of knowledge (or ability) to see that they aren't clear.
> 
> tbh, you can't really see what happens when the driver pulls away, and whether they went straight until they were fully past the cyclist, but let's say they did, and that they didn't run over the cyclist's foot, do you realise how scary & threatening it is to have a driver pull away from you that close? Do you get how having this kind of thing happen day after day after day with apparently no recognition from drivers that yes they have actually put you in a place where you could easily be seriously harmed, or that doing so gave them nothing at all? I'll avoid shouting, because like I've said it's pointless or counterproductive, but I totally understand why someone else would shout and I've done it in the past myself. I'd rather remain focused on the driver in this situation, who does something which actually puts other people at risk of serious physical injury, in contravention to the highway code, and quite deliberately (ie: it's not a momentary lapse of of error to enter the ASL).



Again. The driver has already been told off by the time he pulls away.

Chasing him down subsequently and screaming "fucking prick" into his face was a cunts trick that got the cyclist decked, and if that's how you choose to deal with people, that's what's going to happen. Sooner or later you'll abuse someone who wasn't raised in a wigwam and get your lights put out.

Tough luck.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

So, being raised not to be a thug = raised in a wigwam!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Onket said:


> He is likely to argue with you forever about it ....



I'll make him!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Again. The driver has already been told off by the time he pulls away.
> 
> Chasing him down subsequently and screaming "fucking prick" into his face was a cunts trick that got the cyclist decked, and if that's how you choose to deal with people, that's what's going to happen. Sooner or later you'll abuse someone who wasn't raised in a wigwam and get your lights put out.
> 
> Tough luck.



Pulling into an ASL where cyclists are waiting is a cunts trick. If you do stuff like that then that's what's going to happen. Sooner or later you'll put a cyclist in danger who wasn't raised in a wigwam and get shouted at / have your wing mirrors taken off.

Tough luck.

More seriously - do you understand that pulling into the ASL is an aggressive, threatening act? Have you looked at the screengrab I posted and thought about what the 3 hazards are that were escalated from minor to serious risks?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 19, 2015)

The Boy said:


> I see spymaster has managed to get a few more pages out of an incident that has nothing to do with the one in the OP.


Yes & back to op, wtf is happening? I can find nothing new in the news, somebody must have an update.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'm saying that the cyclist deserved the clump for the "you fucking prick" screamed into his face, yes.
> 
> I'd have thought you'd have figured this out by now, Poindexter.



pedant - it's the passenger, not the driver, who does the punching. The driver gets shouted at.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes & back to op, wtf is happening? I can find nothing new in the news, somebody must have an update.



Not seen anything - I guess the cyclist hasn't come forward, or I would have thought we'd have heard that, driver's not been charged, even though they've come forward. We'll probably not hear anything more until they are charged or unless the police decide not to investigate without a claim.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 19, 2015)

> A cyclist who appeared to be knocked off his bike and assaulted in a YouTube video has been found but does not want to press charges, police said.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30851989


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> More seriously - do you understand that pulling into the ASL is an aggressive, threatening act? Have you looked at the screengrab I posted and thought about what the 3 hazards are that were escalated from minor to serious risks?


I hope he makes an attempt to answer soon, because I'm really interested to know what your view of it is.  The suspenders are killing me.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> More seriously - do you understand that pulling into the ASL is an aggressive, threatening act?



I'd wager 99 times out of 100 it's simple absent-mindedness. Not quite the Cuban missile crisis...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> More seriously - do you understand that pulling into the ASL is an aggressive, threatening act? Have you looked at the screengrab I posted and thought about what the 3 hazards are that were escalated from minor to serious risks?



Ffs, Tom, yes!

The way that driver behaved was aggressive. All the more reason to stay well away from him unless you're confident that a) his driving won't get you killed or injured, and b) you've got the goods to back yourself if someone jumps out of the car!

I can't see your screengrab properly on my phone but from memory the hazards were squeezing the cyclists pulling away from the junction and possibly obstructing the other carriageway. I'll have another look when I get home.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> I'd wager 99 times out of 100 it's simple absent-mindedness. Not quite the Cuban missile crisis...



No chance in this case, and I am talking specifically about this case in that post.

I think that mostly when drivers are coming up to ASLs and the lights change and they roll into it, it's either absent mindedness or a genuine lack of understanding of what an ASL is and why it's there. That kind of thing won't happen if cyclists are already in the ASL.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> No chance in this case, and I am talking specifically about this case in that post.
> 
> I think that mostly when drivers are coming up to ASLs and the lights change and they roll into it, it's either absent mindedness or a genuine lack of understanding of what an ASL is and why it's there. That kind of thing won't happen if cyclists are already in the ASL.


And why cyclists would be right to move their bikes further in front of the car to make their point about this encroaching


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, Tom, yes!
> 
> The way that driver behaved was aggressive. All the more reason to stay well away from him unless you're confident that a) his driving won't get you killed or injured, and b) you've got the goods to back yourself if someone jumps out of the car!
> 
> I can't see your screengrab properly on my phone but from memory the hazards were squeezing the cyclist pulling away from the junction and possibly obstructing the other carriageway. I'll have another look when I get home.



Good. Your posts come off like you think the first piece of actual aggression was from the cyclist, probably because you're focussing so hard on that.


(b) agreed totally.
(a) well, yes, sort of, but actually keeping yourself in front of drivers, in primary position, is often the best way to keep yourself safe, particularly through a junction and especially as the audi isn't the only hazard, and because cyclists average faster speeds than drivers in cities - in London all day every weekday, 9mph I saw yesterday as average driving speed, I'm a slow cyclist and I do 12mph ave on my commute to work - much faster than driving it's kind of difficult to keep away from a driver by trying to keep them in front of you. The cyclist does head off the other way after the shouting/punching which may mean he's decided to follow your advice and go an alternative way today.


Cheers - didn't know you were on your phone, tag or quote me when you can look, so we can let kabbes out of his suspenders


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, Tom, yes!
> 
> The way that driver behaved was aggressive. All the more reason to stay well away from him unless you're confident that a) his driving won't get you killed or injured, and b) you've got the goods to back yourself if someone jumps out of the car!
> 
> I can't see your screengrab properly on my phone but from memory the hazards were squeezing the cyclist pulling away from the junction and possibly obstructing the other carriageway. I'll have another look when I get home.


You should only challenge people if you're hard enough? WTF?


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 19, 2015)

What is an ASL? 

A google only reveals American Sign Language or age/sex/location.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You should only challenge people if you're hard enough? WTF?



Nah - you should only challenge people aggressively if you are prepared for them to escalate it. That's not saying the other person is right to escalate it, nor is it saying that they shouldn't be challenged - it's about the way in which you challenge someone, and what reaction(s) you can or should expect to happen as a result of the way you do it.
Having said that, everything I've said about exercise + being threatened + adrenaline means that I understand why a cyclist would get shouty and have no problem with it.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

isvicthere? said:


> What is an ASL?
> 
> A google only reveals American Sign Language or age/sex/location.



Advance Stop Line, also called Advance Stop Box (spy is using ASB for this, I use ASL because ASB stands for Anti-Social Behaviour in my head, the two terms are interchangeable).


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You should only challenge people if you're hard enough? WTF?



There's an enormous difference between a polite word in their shell, a la BigTom, and Superman's "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" screamed inches from the window. If you're going to apply the latter method, yes, you need to be able to take care of yourself when it goes tits up. And it will.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Advance Stop Line, also called Advance Stop Box (spy is using ASB for this, I use ASL because ASB stands for Anti-Social Behaviour in my head, the two terms are interchangeable).



Gotcha, thanks.


----------



## fen_boy (Jan 19, 2015)

He's been charged http://road.cc/content/news/140715-suspect-charged-after-essex-road-rage-attack-cyclist


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> There's an enormous difference between a polite word in their shell, a la BigTom, and Superman's "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" screamed inches from the window, and yes, if you're going to apply the latter method you need to be able to take care of yourself when it goes tits up.


So you've no right to be angry if you can't fight?  in fact you are still contending that you in fact DESERVE a slap for being angry at dangerous driving.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Nah - you should only challenge people aggressively if you are prepared for them to escalate it. That's not saying the other person is right to escalate it, nor is it saying that they shouldn't be challenged - it's about the way in which you challenge someone, and what reaction(s) you can or should expect to happen as a result of the way you do it.
> Having said that, everything I've said about exercise + being threatened + adrenaline means that I understand why a cyclist would get shouty and have no problem with it.


Indeed, which is why I try to avoid those situations now.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

fen_boy said:


> He's been charged http://road.cc/content/news/140715-suspect-charged-after-essex-road-rage-attack-cyclist



Public Order Offence, interesting, wonder exactly what charge that is, guessing it's affray, hopefully not breach of the peace which has no real sanctions at all. Presumably means they won't be able to take his driving licence away though, which to me would be what I'd want to see from this, as he's clearly shown that he can't be trusted with the responsibility of a vehicle (which would be including 7.5t vehicles I would imagine, he looks old enough to have passed his test before 1997).


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

fen_boy said:


> He's been charged http://road.cc/content/news/140715-suspect-charged-after-essex-road-rage-attack-cyclist



Excellent. Hope he does time.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Indeed, which is why I try to avoid those situations now.



yep, me too. I quite often spend some time muttering angrily to myself after I've arrived at my destination though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> So you've no right to be angry if you can't fight?  in fact you are still contending that you in fact DESERVE a slap for being angry at dangerous driving.



Nope. You deserve a slap for screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" into strangers faces. 

I think I'll just start copy and pasting that now.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


I notice that the dicks waving their dicks about and telling it like it is are vegi baiters and have 'big n tough' user names, ugh


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Pulling into an ASL where cyclists are waiting is a cunts trick. If you do stuff like that then that's what's going to happen. Sooner or later you'll put a cyclist in danger who wasn't raised in a wigwam and get shouted at / have your wing mirrors taken off.
> 
> Tough luck.
> 
> More seriously - do you understand that pulling into the ASL is an aggressive, threatening act? Have you looked at the screengrab I posted and thought about what the 3 hazards are that were escalated from minor to serious risks?


It's not only an aggressive act, it's actually illegal (in London at least) for a motorist to pull into an ASB when the light is red.



> Do not enter the ASL box when the light is red – this space is reserved for the safety of cyclists.
> 
> Crossing the first or second ASL line when the light is red makes you liable for a £100 fixed penalty, three points on your licence, and endangers vulnerable road users.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Public Order Offence, interesting, wonder exactly what charge that is, guessing it's affray, hopefully not breach of the peace which has no real sanctions at all. Presumably means they won't be able to take his driving licence away though, which to me would be what I'd want to see from this, as he's clearly shown that he can't be trusted with the responsibility of a vehicle (which would be including 7.5t vehicles I would imagine, he looks old enough to have passed his test before 1997).



With a bit of luck he'll have left a superficial mark on the fella so they can hit him with one of the BH's.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. You deserve a slap for screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" into strangers faces.
> 
> I think I'll just start copy and pasting that now.



and someone deserves to have "YOU FUCKING PRICK" screamed into their face (though a closed car window in this case) for aggressive, dangerous driving.

for me, anyway, if you agree to that (and I think you do, from your previous post) then I've no issue with what you're saying - though I wouldn't want to condone any of those actions, which saying someone deserves something kind of does. You need to be explicit about it though, because there's so much victim blaming around cyclists.
All of the actions here, it's the cyclist's ones that I understand best tbh.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I note that the militant cyclists and the militant vegetarians from a recent thread are the same group of people.


The more I cycle, the hungrier I get and even more animals get eaten.

The car driver was a prick (most aren't) and the cyclist was right to point it out. I usually give them applause or a thumbs up, it works well.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> It's not only an aggressive act, it's actually illegal (in London at least) for a motorist to pull into an ASB when the light is red.



Against the highway code:



> *178*
> *Advanced stop lines.* Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, *MUST* stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you *MUST* stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)*



I dunno about those specific laws, but wherever you are it's illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. You deserve a slap for screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK!" into strangers faces.
> 
> I think I'll just start copy and pasting that now.


I still don't understand why you think it deserves a slap. Can't people just stick to yelling at each other?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I still don't understand why you think it deserves a slap. Can't people just stick to yelling at each other?



Genuine question:

If someone screamed at me "YOU FUCKING PAKI" or "NIGGER", do you think I'd be right to deck them?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

racist abuse is different, you haven't done anything to provoke racist abuse just by being dark skinned. Not a good comparison.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

come on spy ffs


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I still don't understand why you think it deserves a slap. Can't people just stick to yelling at each other?


might is right!!
that is how _real men_ sort their issues out tho isn't it


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> I notice that the dicks waving their dicks about and telling it like it is are vegi baiters and have '*big* n tough' user names, ugh


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> racist abuse is different, you haven't done anything to provoke racist abuse just by being dark skinned. Not a good comparison.



But OU has consistently stated that violence is not an appropriate reaction to words. Ever. 

Now in my world, and I'm sure that of many other posters, screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK" is not too far removed from the racist shit. It's fighting talk, and the precursor to a punch up.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

e2a to BigT

not you of course!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But OU has consistently stated that violence is not an appropriate reaction to words. Ever.
> 
> Now in my world, and I'm sure that of many other posters, screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK" is not too far removed from the racist shit. It's fighting talk, and the precursor to a punch up.


"In my world"
that being the "real world" of course


----------



## Onket (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'll make him!


As long as it doesn't escalate to violence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> "In my world"
> that being the "real world" of course



Indeed.


----------



## Nylock (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Remember people, you are responsible for a driver's action, as this sticker (produced by the Road Haulage Association) clearly informs us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


TBF though, HGV's are riddled with blind spots and are best given a wide berth *regardless* of whether you are a driver/cyclist/motorcyclist/pedestrian. Particularly around the cab/rear areas (even with rear-facing cameras).


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

I don't recall anybody ever shouting "YOU FUCKING PRICK" in my face.  Wonder why that might be?  

So I'm not sure what my reaction might be if it happened.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But OU has consistently stated that violence is not an appropriate reaction to words. Ever.
> 
> Now in my world, and I'm sure that of many other posters, screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK" is not too far removed from the racist shit. It's fighting talk, and the precursor to a punch up.



First line - fair, if OU has been explicit about that (I cba to read back the whole thread), rather than meaning that it's not appropriate in this kind of situation, which doesn't cover racist abuse.

Second line, I think it's miles away from racist abuse so not really comparable. It is fighting talk though. I can't fight so I'd be looking for a way out of things if someone shouted that at me (or going for a dirty move to give myself time to run  ), but I wouldn't be starting anything that I think might lead to that be shouted at me either. If I shouted that at someone, I'd not be exactly surprised if they threw a punch at me.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

Mind you, I did once shout that somebody was a cunt when they almost ran me over on a zebra crossing.  Had I not leapt four foot sideways, there would have been no more kabbes.  And that made me irked.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Nylock said:


> TBF though, HGV's are riddled with blind spots and are best given a wide berth *regardless* of whether you are a driver/cyclist/motorcyclist/pedestrian. Particularly around the cab/rear areas (even with rear-facing cameras).








Even on an HGV, it's still a stupid message - nobody is allowed to walk near the vehicle at any time? What about a banksman? What about the driver/passenger?
Get the message right - pedestrians take care around this vehicle / make sure you can be seen. Not don't come anywhere near it.
same with the cycling ones - cyclists do not filter on the left is a good message, cyclists stay back - or even worse the "cyclists I can't see you" one that was seen by someone on here last year - wrong message. Particularly frustrating when you start seeing these stickers on transits, minivans and even fucking cars like the above.


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> I notice that the dicks waving their dicks about and telling it like it is are vegi baiters and have 'big n tough' user names, ugh


What like 'dragon'? 
(mythical creature or nationalist sentiment both pretty 'big n tough')

I'm the only person on the thread that's admitted/boasted committing acts of violence and vandalism on the road and I've got the sissiest name.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Excellent. Hope he does time.



I wouldn't hold your breath.  He could have killed him and got away with it, most drivers do.

Plenty of sites detail unwillingness to prosecute and crap sentencing when people are charged, such as http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/cyclists_stories .  There's a reason cyclists are often angry about lack of action when their lives are threatened, and the culture of videoing people is more a case of 'shaming' bad drivers or companies rather than grassing them up to the police, which achieves nothing in most cases.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 19, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30851989



I thought the idea of having the CPS would be that they could press charges if it was in the public interest.

In this case if the case does not get pushed through on the cyclists say so, I would say that the CPS are failing in their duty tbh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Genuine question:
> 
> If someone screamed at me "YOU FUCKING PAKI" or "NIGGER", do you think I'd be right to deck them?


No. Understandable maybe, but not right. There are laws that cover this!


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

maomao said:


> I've got the sissiest name.


"Kabbes" means "cabbage".  HTH.


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

kabbes said:


> "Kabbes" means "cabbage".  HTH.


Mine best translates as 'little furry one'. I win.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

Little furry ones eat cabbage though.  I win.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But OU has consistently stated that violence is not an appropriate reaction to words. Ever.
> 
> Now in my world, and I'm sure that of many other posters, screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK" is not too far removed from the racist shit. It's fighting talk, and the precursor to a punch up.


Fighting talk lol


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> No. Understandable maybe, but not right. There are laws that cover this!



And this is why you and I are never going to agree on this stuff.


----------



## ffsear (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I still don't understand why you think it deserves a slap. Can't people just stick to yelling at each other?




Because some people have these things called "emotions."	 The real world does not = a logical response to everything.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Because some people have these things called "emotions."	 The real world does not = a logical response to everything.



Although banging out the racist would be entirely logical. Should be a sport.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> "In my world"
> that being the "real world" of course


Where people know the rules of the road.


----------



## Onket (Jan 19, 2015)

kabbes said:


> "Kabbes" means "cabbage".  HTH.


Not "Kebabs"?


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Little furry ones eat cabbage though.  I win.



I concede (thereby being sissier)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

ffsear said:


> Because some people have these things called "emotions."	 The real world does not = a logical response to everything.


 Most people manage to keep a lid on their temper and not hit anyone.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 19, 2015)

Onket said:


> Not "Kebabs"?


Not kebabs, no.  Definitely not kebabs.


----------



## Onket (Jan 19, 2015)

You can't stop me from saying it like that inside my head.

I win.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> "In my world"
> that being the "real world" of course



As opposed to "cloud cuckoo land."


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

isvicthere? said:


> As opposed to "cloud cuckoo land."


or "the lodge"


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> No. Understandable maybe, but not right. There are laws that cover this!



Turning to a racist institution to get help with racism is sound advice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


>



Right, Tom and kabbes. Potential hazards here:

It looks as though the car is going to obstruct traffic coming the other way unless he moves into the riders.

The driver is going to have to cut-up the cyclists anyway to get in lane on the other side, and the barriers on the left may prevent the cyclists from getting out of the way.

What have I missed?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Turning to a racist institution to get help with racism is sound advice.


I didn't bring racism into this!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> or "the lodge"



What the fuck are you on about now, ddraigo?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I didn't bring racism into this!



This is urban. Everything boils down to racism.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Aaannnyway, what has all this got to do with the OP? Aside from petrolheads victim blaming cyclists, that is?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 19, 2015)

Onket said:


> You can't stop me from saying it like that inside my head.
> 
> I win.



That's fighting talk


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Aaannnyway, what has all this got to do with the OP? Aside from petrolheads victim blaming cyclists, that is?


the debate has to be moved until acceptable to the willy wavers (or you give up), as usually happens on vegi threads


----------



## bemused (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Aaannnyway, what has all this got to do with the OP? Aside from petrolheads victim blaming cyclists, that is?



Moral of the story is don't shout at car drivers if you're pedaling next to them, you  may just be annoying a moron.

Whilst we're at it I think cyclists using cleats should have a license to prove they know how to use them.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 19, 2015)

fen_boy said:


> He's been charged http://road.cc/content/news/140715-suspect-charged-after-essex-road-rage-attack-cyclist


This is rather strange. The news story was posted on 16th Jan & I assumed the incident had taken place that morning. It now appears it happened on 8th Dec.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> the debate has to be moved until acceptable to the willy wavers (or you give up), as usually happens on vegi threads



Oh shut up whining, bell end. There's been no willy-waving and you didn't even post on this thread until a few pages ago when the bunfight was in full swing. All of you're contributions have just been your usual snipes and cat-calls from the sidelines.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Right, Tom and kabbes. Potential hazards here:
> 
> It looks as though the car is going to obstruct traffic coming the other way unless he moves into the riders.
> 
> ...



You've got 2 of the 3 including the biggest/most serious one - Audi is into the other side of the road, and there's a 7.5t truck waiting to come straight on so the audi is going to have to cut sharply back in to avoid the collision with the truck and over that short distance, they'll have to boot it away from the junction to be anything like clear of the cyclists in that time. The Audi itself is the second hazard, at first they could be a decent driver, now they've shown that they won't obey the highway code and so they are unpredictable and dangerous. They might even crash into the truck if they don't pull in sharply enough, that'd probably be even more dangerous.

The one you've missed is the bus which is stopped just past the junction. I'd want to be out wide before the end of the junction so that I'm not in the bus driver's blind spot as I approach the bus to overtake it, because this reduces my chances of being hit by the bus if it is ready to pull out whilst I'm passing it. You'll also have the additional hazard of any drivers that might be behind the audi that you'll need to pull out in front of to go past the bus and there's a decent chance the following driver(s) won't let you out and you'll have to stop behind the bus and wait for it to start moving. (edit: also, I'd want to give almost all my attention to this bus to watch for it starting to indicate, now I've got to give most of my attention to the audi and following traffic).

That's why I've said that I might move to the right to put myself in front of the audi when they did that - I'd keep them behind me until I'm past the bus, or unless the bus indicates to pull away before I arrive. The cyclist was in a decent primary position at first and would have been able to move out early, so this wasn't a major hazard beforehand, now they can't and may have to contend with other drivers following the audi.

There's plenty of other hazards too - the construction site, which looks like it has an entrance to that road, and looks like it's hoardings are over the pavement, possibly narrowing the carriageway (you'd need to know the road to know that); pedestrians who look to have their own light phase but that doesn't stop people crossing at other times; side roads which may have drivers jumping reds depending on how the phases run; other cyclists; other drivers - but these aren't affected by the audi driver's move.

In hindsight, none of the hazards turned out to be dangerous - but at that moment, at the junction, yeah, these are serious, and all because the audi driver decided to do something illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh shut up whining, bell end. There's been no willy-waving and you didn't even post on this thread until a few pages ago when the bunfight was in full swing. All of you're contributions have just been your usual snipes and cat-calls from the sidelines.


You're speaking of fighting talk yet you say you're not willy waving


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> This is rather strange. The news story was posted on 16th Jan & I assumed the incident had taken place that morning. It now appears it happened on 8th Dec.



The cyclist didn't post the footage onto youtube until January, but the timestamp on the video is for december. The cyclist didn't report it to the police and isn't pressing charges (though the police have charged the driver with something anyway), so it's not surprising they didn't go to the police straight away. I'm assuming they posted the video up in order to name and shame the driver, obviously they don't think there's much point in engaging with the legal system.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

bemused said:


> Moral of the story is don't shout at car drivers if you're pedaling next to them, you  may just be annoying a moron.


True, but we still can't get past the ridiculous macho assertion that doing such a thing _deserves _being violently and illegally attacked


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You're speaking of fighting talk yet you say you're not willy waving



No, not at all.

Fuck me you're a fool.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

BigTom said:


> You've got 2 of the 3 including the biggest/most serious one - Audi is into the other side of the road, and there's a 7.5t truck waiting to come straight on so the audi is going to have to cut sharply back in to avoid the collision with the truck and over that short distance, they'll have to boot it away from the junction to be anything like clear of the cyclists in that time. The Audi itself is the second hazard, at first they could be a decent driver, now they've shown that they won't obey the highway code and so they are unpredictable and dangerous. They might even crash into the truck if they don't pull in sharply enough, that'd probably be even more dangerous.
> 
> The one you've missed is the bus which is stopped just past the junction. I'd want to be out wide before the end of the junction so that I'm not in the bus driver's blind spot as I approach the bus to overtake it, because this reduces my chances of being hit by the bus if it is ready to pull out whilst I'm passing it. You'll also have the additional hazard of any drivers that might be behind the audi that you'll need to pull out in front of to go past the bus and there's a decent chance the following driver(s) won't let you out and you'll have to stop behind the bus and wait for it to start moving. (edit: also, I'd want to give almost all my attention to this bus to watch for it starting to indicate, now I've got to give most of my attention to the audi and following traffic).
> 
> ...



Great post. Disappointed I didn't think more about the bus.

It's quite clear that the Audi merchant is out of order and was from the start.

It is possible to condemn aggressive drivers and aggressive/abusive cyclists.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Great post. Disappointed I didn't think more about the bus.
> 
> It's quite clear that the Audi merchant is out of order and was from the start.
> 
> It is possible to condemn aggressive drivers and aggressive/abusive cyclists.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

ddraig said:


> the debate has to be moved until acceptable to the willy wavers (or you give up), as usually happens on vegi threads



What has vegetarianism got to do with this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No, not at all.
> 
> Fuck me you're a fool.


The only other time I heard that phrase was from a bloke wanting to fight me. He was a macho dickhead too.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> What has vegetarianism got to do with this?


nothing


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The only other time I heard that phrase was from a bloke wanting to fight me. He was a macho dickhead too.





And I don't believe you, btw.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


>


You really don't know how the way people like you appear to others, do you? Swagger swagger swagger. You're cut from the same cloth as that Audi driver. I bet you've twatted a lot of people too and you're trying to retrospectively justify it to yourself by all this bluster.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You really don't know how the way people like you appear to others, do you? Swagger swagger swagger. You're cut from the same cloth as that Audi driver. I bet you've twatted a lot of people too and you're trying to retrospectively justify it to yourself by all this bluster.



Well I suppose we're all products of our backgrounds and since the only people who seem to have any massive issues with what I've posted here are a couple of spawks like you and thraigo I won't be losing any sleep over how I appear.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You really don't know how the way people like you appear to others, do you? Swagger swagger swagger. You're cut from the same cloth as that Audi driver. I bet you've twatted a lot of people too and you're trying to retrospectively justify it to yourself by all this bluster.



I expect not everyone had the same upbringing as you. By that I don't mean parenting, I mean social surroundings. Unfortunately in some settings you're forced to learn brutality.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I expect not everyone had the same upbringing as you. By that I don't mean parenting, I mean social surroundings. Unfortunately in some settings you're forced to learn brutality.


How nice


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How nice



So you don't want to understand why spy comes across like he does?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So you don't want to understand why spy comes across like he does?



Leave it mate.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well I suppose we're all products of our backgrounds and since the only people who seem to have any massive issues with what I've posted here are a couple of spawks like you and thraigo I won't be losing any sleep over how I appear.


I'd say I'm fairly level-headed and I do think that, whilst you're clearly on the wind-up, you definitely have a touch of the 'Internet hard-man' about you. 

I wouldn't call it a massive issue, though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Leave it mate.



Fair dos.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's quite clear that the Audi merchant is out of order and was from the start.
> 
> It is possible to condemn aggressive drivers and aggressive/abusive cyclists.


How should the cyclist deal with it then?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> How should the cyclist deal with it then?



Get out of the way until the fuckwit has gone.


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> How should the cyclist deal with it then?


coley had the best idea. Key his car and fuck off sharpish.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Get out of the way until the fuckwit has gone.


Is that your solution then, do nowt and let him carry on being a dickhead?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is that your solution then, do nowt and let him carry on being a dickhead?



Yeah definitely on the roads. Same as when I'm driving. Cyclists aren't the only folk who witness dickish behaviour by other road users and I wouldn't go looking for trouble.

As we've discussed you're not going to change the behaviour of pricks like that by shouting at them but you do have every chance of making their problems yours.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah definitely on the roads. Same as when I'm driving. Cyclists aren't the only folk who witness dickish behaviour by other road users and I wouldn't go looking for trouble.
> 
> As we've discussed you're not going to change the behaviour of pricks like that by shouting at them but you do have every chance of making their problems yours.


But giving vent does make you feel better.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> But giving vent does make you feel better.



I reckon that lad in Farringdon may disagree with you.


----------



## bemused (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is that your solution then, do nowt and let him carry on being a dickhead?



I'm not sure having an argument with another road user whilst in traffic is a particularly good idea either.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But OU has consistently stated that violence is not an appropriate reaction to words. Ever.
> 
> Now in my world, and I'm sure that of many other posters, screaming "YOU FUCKING PRICK" is not too far removed from the racist shit. It's fighting talk, and the precursor to a punch up.



Aye, but the proper response would be to put your hand up,palm facing and try to defuse the situation. 

While preparing for a right hook or swift kick in the nuts if conciliation didn't work.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> How should the cyclist deal with it then?



Wage a persistent campaign of passive aggressive faux hippy sniping and misrepresentation until the boredom causes the opponent to shuffle off.

Works for some


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How nice



Not nice at all,but sometimes a fact of life, unfortunately


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 19, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> But giving vent does make you feel better.



Urban cycling shouldn't really be about your _feelings_.


----------



## coley (Jan 19, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Urban cycling shouldn't really be about your _feelings_.


Unless you have 'suicidal feelings'


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well I suppose we're all products of our backgrounds and since the only people who seem to have any massive issues with what I've posted here are a couple of spawks like you and thraigo I won't be losing any sleep over how I appear.


What's a spawk when it's at home cunty?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

A Walter,


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is that your solution then, do nowt and let him carry on being a dickhead?


he's not going to stop being a dickhead due to having a cyclist ranting at him through his window.

Tbh I find someone shaking their head at me to be far more effective and would be far more likely to get an 'i'm sorry, I fucked it up' type response than having a rant at them.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 20, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is that your solution then, do nowt and let him carry on being a dickhead?



Is his behaviour your responsibility?

Inspire change in others who are open to change as and when they are receptive to change. Down the pub, on a message board, support a campaign etc.

Not somewhere where you put yourself at risk.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Having read the thread and viewed the footage of the Farringdon incident, I have concluded that...

a) the driver was being very silly and driving most erratically - perhaps they were on their way to an emergency and were somewhat distracted

b) the Cyclist should _really_ consider the possible consequences before raising the stakes when he is clearly something of a paper tiger

c) the passenger (the fella who threw the punch) would have a perfectly plausible 'pre-emptive strike' defence (á lá Stevie Gerard) if nicked.

d) Spymaster has played a blinder

e) These boards are brimming with passive-agressive types who would be perfect playmates for _this_ woman http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/party-invoice-boy-sent-bill-for-birthday-no-show.331378/


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon that lad in Farringdon may disagree with you.



which one? the aggressive/out-of-control cyclist? 

or the passenger who was obviously _in_ control, who contented himself with a single left-hander to avert the imminent danger - and didn't follow through/take the piss once he had assessed the cyclist was all mouth and trousers and was not near as dangerous or menacing as he had previously indicated he might be?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO - like that little trickle of piss that comes after a long unpleasant shit


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

bemused said:


> There is a little subculture of cyclists who post videos of themselves shouting at drivers and calling out their number plates. Seems a little officious to me.



Innit. Pencil monitors who couldn't make it as football referees or traffic wardens.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> LiamO - like that little trickle of piss that comes after a long unpleasant shit



That's a little aggressive isn't it 

anyway, I'd say you rarely even _have_ a long shit - I'm sure it just dribbles out of you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> That's a little aggressive isn't it


I'm not resolving owt with my fists


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> Having read the thread and viewed the footage of the Farringdon incident, I have concluded that...
> 
> a) the driver was being very silly and driving most erratically - perhaps they were on their way to an emergency and were somewhat distracted
> 
> ...


0/10
You should pay more attention to spymaster, he knows how to wind people up, especially on this kind of topic.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not resolving owt with my fists



Yes, because, just like our cyclist friend, you too are all wind and piss.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> 0/10



Really? We all see these events through the prism of our own life experience. Your - or the cyclist's -  moral outrage won't count for much in a Court. 

Let's see what the Court case brings - assuming the puncher is not some dumb 'orwhite Guv, it's a fair cop' recidivist.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> Really? We all see these events through the prism of our own life experience. Your - or the cyclist's -  moral outrage won't count for much in a Court.
> 
> Let's see what the Court case brings - assuming the puncher is not some dumb 'orwhite Guv, it's a fair cop' recidivist.


Farringdon incident was ages ago and isn't going to court


----------



## Onket (Jan 20, 2015)

Let's press on. Could make 20 pages.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Farringdon incident was ages ago and isn't going to court



why not?

Cos the cyclist realised he hadn't a leg to stand on legally?

Or because the Polis/ DPP could see immediately that the puncher was never gonna get convicted?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 20, 2015)

Onket said:


> Let's press on. Could make 20 pages.


I've had this on watch since the start. I'm getting better at spotting the winners.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> .... the passenger who was obviously _in_ control, who contented himself with a single left-hander to avert the imminent danger - and didn't follow through/take the piss .....



Unlike the mad dog in the op who needs putting down!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> why not?
> 
> Cos the cyclist realised he hadn't a leg to stand on legally?
> 
> Or because the Polis/ DPP could see immediately that the puncher was never gonna get convicted?


The cyclist never went to the police, he sucked it up instead of whining about it.
Police don't like making extra work for themselves and as a generalisation don't give a shit about cyclists. Why would they pursue this without a complaint.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> The cyclist never went to the police, he sucked it up instead of whining about it.



pity the fannies moaning on here could not follow his example.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Unlike the mad dog in the op who needs putting down!



His reaction only serves to highlight the commendable restraint and control shown by the Farringdon Fist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> Yes, because, just like our cyclist friend, you too are all wind and piss.


Aw maybe I can express myself without resorting to twatting them, knuckles


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Aw maybe I can express myself without resorting to twatting them, knuckles



If you've behaved anything like Superman you haven't resolved anything. You've just been getting lucky.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> If you've behaved anything like Superman you haven't resolved anything. You've just been getting lucky.


A few times. Once they tried to kill me. And I was lucky. I avoid such confrontations now. The problem I have is with you saying that losing one's temper and swearing after a motorist has just put your life in danger is _deserving_ a slap. What nonsense.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> Yes, because, just like our cyclist friend, you too are all wind and piss.


In other words, 'I AM HARD, I CAN FIGHT! UGG! UGG!'


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> A few times. Once they tried to kill me. And I was lucky. I avoid such confrontations now.



Good move.



> The problem I have is with you saying that losing one's temper and swearing after a motorist has just put your life in danger is _deserving_ a slap. What nonsense.



He didn't _just_ swear though, OU. He chased the car like a maniac for a couple of hundred yards, stopped beside it and vitriolically _screamed_ the abuse through the window. That ups the stakes enormously. Had he just shouted "cunt" or something similar after him (still not advisable) chances are the car would have just driven away.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Having been in that situation before, I can still sympathise with the cyclist. Cars are scary and it's reasonable to want to remonstratr angrily after a fright like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Farringdon incident was ages ago and isn't going to court



Had it done so the most that could have happened is that driver (if they could identify him) may have been done for encroaching the asb. It's by no means clear that the puncher could be successfully prosecuted because he'd have a reasonable shout at self defence.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Had it done so the most that could have happened is that driver (if they could identify him) may have been done for encroaching the asb. It's by no means clear that the puncher could be successfully prosecuted because he'd have a reasonable shout at self defence.


Why is punching someone self-defence from someone voicing their opinion angrily?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Having been in that situation before, I can still sympathise with the cyclist.



Can you sympathise with the passenger who's just been chased down the road by a screaming loon, and may well think that a cycle is about to come through the window?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why is punching someone self-defence from someone voicing their opinion angrily?



Because voicing an opinion angrily, like that, is often the precursor to physical violence and nobody is under any obligation to get punched first.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Can you sympathise with the passenger who's just been chased down the road by a screaming loon, and may well think that a cycle is about to come through the window?


I would just think he was yelling at me. It happens a lot on the roads.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Because voicing an opinion angrily, like that, is often the precursor to physical violence and nobody is under any obligation to get punched first.


It needn't get beyond a shouting match though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It needn't get beyond a shouting match though.



It needn't become a shouting match in the first place. Shouting matches often become punching matches.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It needn't become a shouting match in the first place. Shouting matches often become punching matches.


But they needn't. What's wrong with a quick frank exchange of views? Why do a few people see the need to escalate this into violence?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> which one? the aggressive/out-of-control cyclist?
> 
> or the passenger who was obviously _in_ control, who contented himself with a single left-hander to avert the imminent danger - and didn't follow through/take the piss once he had assessed the cyclist was all mouth and trousers and was not near as dangerous or menacing as he had previously indicated he might be?



all these drivers know the cyclists are going to be zilch on the pavement, cut them up / take liberties / endanger lives then give it the big outraged routine when the cyclists, who die on these roads thanks to the likes of them, give them a bit of verbal . The goons jumping out of  cars are complete mugs, absolutely DESPERATE FOR IT, wldnt' say boo to a goose in their local, suddenly they're the big heroes on the street when it's a veggie courier. Embarassing, hope the six months bird or whatever was worth it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Cyclist: "YOU FUCKING PRICK!"
Driver: "Begone you foul mouthed oaf"
Cyclist: "PRICK, CUNT, WANKER, FUCKWIT! ...."
Driver: "I'm going to continue my journey now, goodbye ..."

It'd be nice if the world was like that!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclist: "YOU FUCKING PRICK!"
> Driver: "Begone you foul mouthed oaf"
> Cyclist: "PRICK, CUNT, WANKER, FUCKWIT! ...."
> Driver: "I'm going to continue my journey now, goodbye ..."
> ...


Well, obviously it isn't, as there are still people around who still think it's acceptable to get physical in such an encounter, including you


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2015)

He is just being a prick as per usual, and got back up, ignore him


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Had it done so the most that could have happened is that driver (if they could identify him) may have been done for encroaching the asb. It's by no means clear that the puncher could be successfully prosecuted because he'd have a reasonable shout at self defence.


not convinced, if I was prosecuting I'd argue that if they felt threatened (which is perfectly reasonable) they should have locked the car doors in response, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the legal niceties of "self defence" legal defence.

Anyway, the passenger would only get a verbal warning or possibly police caution unless they had a record, and if they have a record then that could undermine their claim to self defence in court.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Anyway, the passenger would only get a verbal warning or possibly police caution unless they had a record,



Did I miss the bit where he killed the cyclist?


----------



## free spirit (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Having been in that situation before, I can still sympathise with the cyclist. Cars are scary and it's reasonable to want to remonstratr angrily after a fright like that.


reasonable if you're a testoteroned up aggressive prick, and if you are then don't be surprised if someone gives you a smack in response once in a while.

Let's say this was actually a care cutting another car up, would you still say the driver was reasonable to chase the other driver for a block to the next lights, then pull along side and start screaming at the other driver through the window? If not then why's it ok for someone on a bike to do it?

eta thought that's quite a different situation to the one in the OP. In the OP I do have to wonder what happened prior to the footage starting, as I doubt this was the first part of what happened.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Well, obviously it isn't, as there are still people around who still think it's acceptable to get physical in such an encounter, including you



Indeed. And that'll continue whilst there are people who think it's acceptable to chase down and aggressively abuse strangers. Like you.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 20, 2015)

Or to look at it a different way, it will continue whilst there are people who think it acceptable to put the safety of other road users at risk in the way the Audi driver did.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

cantsin said:


> The goons jumping out of  cars are complete mugs, absolutely DESPERATE FOR IT, wldnt' say boo to a goose in their local, suddenly they're the big heroes on the street when it's a veggie courier. Embarassing, hope the six months bird or whatever was worth it.



Completely agree in the case of that mad wanker in the OP but I'd put money on it not being the case with the Farringdon fella.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> reasonable if you're a testoteroned up aggressive prick, and if you are then don't be surprised if someone gives you a smack in response once in a while.
> 
> Let's say this was actually a care cutting another car up, would you still say the driver was reasonable to chase the other driver for a block to the next lights, then pull along side and start screaming at the other driver through the window? If not then why's it ok for someone on a bike to do it?


You can't make a comparison like that, it's just an aggressive prick picking on cyclists, he wouldn't have done the same to a car.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Or to look at it a different way, it will continue whilst there are people who think it acceptable to put the safety of other road users at risk in the way the Audi driver did.



Well yes. But shit driving isn't going to be eradicated by aggressive cyclists screaming at people.it will just get them beaten up occasionally.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. And that'll continue whilst there are people who think it's acceptable to chase down and aggressively abuse strangers. Like you.


I don't think it's wise to do it, but I think its an understandable reaction


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> reasonable if you're a testoteroned up aggressive prick, and if you are then don't be surprised if someone gives you a smack in response once in a while.
> 
> Let's say this was actually a care cutting another car up, would you still say the driver was reasonable to chase the other driver for a block to the next lights, then pull along side and start screaming at the other driver through the window? If not then why's it ok for someone on a bike to do it?
> 
> eta thought that's quite a different situation to the one in the OP. In the OP I do have to wonder what happened prior to the footage starting, as I doubt this was the first part of what happened.


A cyclist is much less of a threat than a motorist


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> A cyclist is much less of a threat than a motorist


but a threat nonetheless you say.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2015)

Road rage aint a good look no matter who does it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> Road rage aint a good look no matter who does it.


i beg to differ


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

free spirit said:


> reasonable if you're a testoteroned up aggressive prick, and if you are then don't be surprised if someone gives you a smack in response once in a while.
> 
> Let's say this was actually a care cutting another car up, would you still say the driver was reasonable to chase the other driver for a block to the next lights, then pull along side and start screaming at the other driver through the window? If not then why's it ok for someone on a bike to do it?
> 
> eta thought that's quite a different situation to the one in the OP. In the OP I do have to wonder what happened prior to the footage starting, as I doubt this was the first part of what happened.


If someone cuts me up when I'm driving I rarely feel my life / physical well-being has been put in danger, I do on my bike all the time.
That's why I think it's understandable for the cyclist to do what they did.

Re the OP vid, there's a good minute  of footage before the van overtakes the first time, there's almost definitely nothing that happened beforehand, I think there's a shorter video floating around though so you might only have seen that. Longer video is in the third post on this thread.

If you've seen the longer video, I dunno why you'd suggest there was more to it, except out of a desperation to blame the cyclist.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> of course it's not like drivers of german cars are alone in this. cyclists are famous for ...
> 
> not to mention you don't say whether the bus lanes were in fact in operation when you observed these drivers in them: not all bus lanes are permanently closed to car drivers. plus if they're in fact minicabs i suspect they're entitled to use them - taxis certainly do.



Minicabs aren't allowed to use bus lanes in the same way that taxis are. Like other cars, they can drive in some bus lanes at certain hours, but they have no special rights.



Spymaster said:


> Can you sympathise with the passenger who's just been chased down the road by a screaming loon, and may well think that a cycle is about to come through the window?



How the fuck could a bike come through a window? Rubber beats glass in a weird version of rock-paper-scissors?




(Yes, I'm bored/avoiding more productive stuff).


----------



## Chilli.s (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No. He was in the asb and the driver drove away. It's not the drivers responsibility to check that no cunt has his foot under the wheel every time he moves foreword.


 Wrong. Ask a professional driver if you aren't sure.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

At risk of further derails, there was an article in the Sunday TImes over the weekend about automated cars, saying how they would be shit because they will obey the highway code!





Spoiler: text from picture for those with screenreaders



Cyclists will also cause problems because a robot car would follow the letter of the Highway Code, crawling behind them as it waits for a gap equal to that when overtaking a car



Picture attached to the article shows a car not leaving as much space as the highway code shows you should when passing a cyclist

I've brought this into this thread because it shows, again, how cyclists are regarded on our roads - the article at least implies that drivers are correct to break the highway code, putting cyclists at risk, in order to overtake them, because drivers must never be slowed in their attempt to reach the next red traffic light/traffic jam. 
This attitude fits with some shown on this thread that seem to disregard the level of danger that cyclists experience on our roads every day, in order to defend a driver doing something shit.
Particularly annoying when you know that you are faster cycling than driving and drivers squeeze past you dangerously. Legitimised by this attitude that cyclists are in the way - which is, I'm sure, how the farringdon audi driver saw the cyclists in the ASL box.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> At risk of further derails, there was an article in the Sunday TImes over the weekend about automated cars, saying how they would be shit because they will obey the highway code!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



it would be nice if everyone obeyed the highway code. but it's not going to happen - people going the wrong way up one-way streets, going through red lights etc etc etc ad nauseam. and that's just the cyclists.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it would be nice if everyone obeyed the highway code. but it's not going to happen - people going the wrong way up one-way streets, going through red lights etc etc etc ad nauseam. and that's just the cyclists.



Yeah, but this article is complaining because people will be *made *to follow the highway code, thus suggesting (at least) that it's acceptable to break the highway code, and put someone else's safety at risk as result - imo because the other person is a cyclist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, but this article is complaining because people will be *made *to follow the highway code, thus suggesting (at least) that it's acceptable to break the highway code, and put someone else's safety at risk as result - imo because the other person is a cyclist.


so it is saying that _potentially_ at some _unspecified time in the future_ there _may be_ issues with cars which _are not on the roads_ either now or in the near future. and you think this is a problem.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so it is saying that _potentially_ at some _unspecified time in the future_ there _may be_ issues with cars which _are not on the roads_ either now or in the near future. and you think this is a problem.



You're missing the point. Read it again. Don't you think that an article which says that something could happen which would make drivers obey the highway code, and that this would be a bad thing, is displaying an attitude towards cyclists which says that cyclists' safety is unimportant and that drivers should disobey the highway code to overtake a cyclist right now? 

You clearly think it would be better if people did obey the highway code, so I don't know why you think it's not a problem when a national newspaper is effectively saying that they shouldn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> You're missing the point. Read it again. Don't you think that an article which says that something could happen which would make drivers obey the highway code, and that this would be a bad thing, is displaying an attitude towards cyclists which says that cyclists' safety is unimportant and that drivers should disobey the highway code to overtake a cyclist right now?
> 
> You clearly think it would be better if people did obey the highway code, so I don't know why you think it's not a problem when a national newspaper is effectively saying that they shouldn't.


where are the drivers mentioned in the article?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> where are the drivers?



on the road?


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> where are the drivers mentioned in the article?


The drivers are currently in cars not obeying the highway code according to the premise of the article which only suggests that there might potentially be a problem at some unspecified time in the future when computer driven cars _start_ following it.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2015)

oh the poor inconvenienced drivers being held up from the next traffic light
and the horror at them actually having to follow the rules of the road!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

.


----------



## bemused (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> The drivers are currently in cars not obeying the highway code according to the premise of the article which only suggests that there might potentially be a problem at some unspecified time in the future when computer driven cars _start_ following it.



Just make narrow robot cars, problem solved.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

i don't think it's a problem because i don't think anyone turns to news pages of the sunday times for driving tips


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think it's a problem because i don't think anyone turns to news pages of the sunday times for driving tips


It's not giving driving tips though is it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's not giving driving tips though is it.





BigTom said:


> You're missing the point. Read it again. Don't you think that an article which says that something could happen which would make drivers obey the highway code, and that this would be a bad thing, is displaying an attitude towards cyclists which says that cyclists' safety is unimportant and that drivers should disobey the highway code to overtake a cyclist right now?
> 
> You clearly think it would be better if people did obey the highway code, so I don't know why you think it's not a problem when a national newspaper is effectively saying that they shouldn't.


so you disagree with bigtom then.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think it's a problem because i don't think anyone turns to news pages of the sunday times for driving tips



Shows the attitude of the journalist(s) / editor(s) towards the highway code and cyclists though doesn't it. Which is the point I was making.

edit: crossposted with your above post, but you needed to underline the first part of that sentence, where I talk about it displaying an attitude


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so you disagree with bigtom then.


No and BigTom doesn't say it's giving driving tips either. He's using it as a evidence of the widespread attitude of motorists towards cyclists on the road.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> No and BigTom doesn't say it's giving driving tips either. He's using it as a evidence of the widespread attitude of motorists towards cyclists on the road.



exactly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> No and BigTom doesn't say it's giving driving tips either. He's using it as a evidence of the widespread attitude of motorists towards cyclists on the road.


he says that the paper is 'effectively saying drivers shouldn't' follow the highway code. which i interpret as giving driving tips.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he says that the paper is 'effectively saying drivers shouldn't' follow the highway code. which i interpret as giving driving tips.


You interpret wrongly (probably deliberately knowing you).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

while i am quite happy to go round this particular roundabout a couple of times more you might want to take an exit.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> he says that the paper is 'effectively saying drivers shouldn't' follow the highway code. which i interpret as giving driving tips.



not what I meant, though that is the message that is put out in that paragraph - just not as a direct tip/instruction to drivers. It simply shows the attitude towards cyclists, which is the same attitude shown by the audi driver in the farringdon clip imo.


----------



## Onket (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> while i am quite happy to go round this particular roundabout a couple of times more you might want to take an exit.


Fighting talk.

Don't let it escalate.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> while i am quite happy to go round this particular roundabout a couple of times more you might want to take an exit.


More of a dead end than a roundabout to tell the truth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Onket said:


> Fighting talk.
> 
> Don't let it escalate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> More of a dead end than a roundabout to tell the truth.


unusual for you


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think it's wise to do it, but I think its an understandable reaction



Really? It's understandable to chuck a tanty after a minor traffic incident in which nobody gets hurt and nothing was damaged?

It's not really on to go round ranting and raving just because you've had a bit of a fright.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Really? It's understandable to chuck a tanty after a minor traffic incident in which nobody gets hurt and nothing was damaged?
> 
> It's not really on to go round ranting and raving just because you've had a bit of a fright.



Cyclist said the audi driver ran over their foot when they pulled away.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


>



YOU FUCKING PRICK. (awaits ball of fur and claws to jump from car)


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Cyclist said the audi driver ran over their foot when they pulled away.



Have you watched the Audi video? Our hero chose to move away from a position where he was perfectly safe to go back and stand very close to the car so he could proffer unsolicited driving advice. If he had tried minding his own fucking business he wouldn't have got his foot run over or punched.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> A cyclist is much less of a threat than a motorist



How do you figure that? A cyclist screaming abuse at your window is as much of a threat as anyone else screaming abuse at your window.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Have you watched the Audi video? Our hero chose to move away from a position where he was perfectly safe to go back and stand very close to the car so he could proffer unsolicited driving advice. If he had tried minding his own fucking business he wouldn't have got his foot run over or punched.



Why say 'our hero' when it's quite obvious your hero is the cunt in the Audi who you feel should be allowed to drive how the fuck he wants and commit common assault in the street.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> You can't make a comparison like that, it's just an aggressive prick picking on cyclists, he wouldn't have done the same to a car.



No. It's an aggressive prick being whacked by someone.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> Have you watched the Audi video? Our hero chose to move away from a position where he was perfectly safe to go back and stand very close to the car so he could proffer unsolicited driving advice. If he had tried minding his own fucking business he wouldn't have got his foot run over or punched.



yeah I have watched the vid, and been through this with Spy, read back through my (decent) discussion with him about this exact point, cba to go through it again, just thought you must be unaware that the cyclist was harmed by this given what you said in your post.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No. It's an aggressive prick being whacked by someone.


At the very worst it's an aggressive prick being whacked by an aggressive prick.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 20, 2015)

And now, as intended, the thread become about the perceived behaviour of cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

scifisam said:


> How the fuck could a bike come through a window? Rubber beats glass in a weird version of rock-paper-scissors?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bikes aren't made of rubber. They've just got rubber bits on them.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclist: "YOU FUCKING PRICK!"
> Driver: "Begone you foul mouthed oaf"
> Cyclist: "PRICK, CUNT, WANKER, FUCKWIT! ...."
> Driver: "I'm going to continue my journey now, goodbye ..."
> ...



I had a confrontation with another car driver today, we called each other a wanker through the window in a traffic jam, and then continued on our merry way.

Sometimes the world is like that.


----------



## bemused (Jan 20, 2015)

The Boy said:


> And now, as intended, the thread become about the perceived behaviour of cyclists.



Yeah, those BMX Bandits what a bunch of cunts - popping wheelies and endos everywhere.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> YOU FUCKING PRICK. (awaits ball of fur and claws to jump from car)



Looks more like a fucking pussy


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I had a confrontation with another car driver today, we called each other a wanker through the window in a traffic jam, and then continued on our merry way.
> 
> Sometimes the world is like that.



Few things are more pleasurable than someone spewing vitriol in your direction from their car, and simply responding with a


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> At the very worst it's an aggressive prick being whacked by an aggressive prick.


 
Screaming abuse is how cyclists save the environment, defeat capitalism and teach the world to sing.
Car drivers who do it are obviously cunts.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I had a confrontation with another car driver today, we called each other a wanker through the window in a traffic jam, and then continued on our merry way.
> 
> Sometimes the world is like that.



That's a very different situation. Two blokes sat in cars shouting at each other aren't going to hurt each other. In that case the threat escalates when one of them gets out of the car.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Anyway, I have my first driving lesson in about 5 minutes so will be coming back to this argument on the other side


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That's a very different situation. Two blokes sat in cars shouting at each other aren't going to hurt each other. In that case the threat escalates when one of them gets out of the car.


and when the other retrieves the iron bar from beneath his seat.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That's a very different situation. Two blokes sat in cars shouting at each other aren't going to hurt each other. In that case the threat escalates when one of them gets out of the car.


 
People in cars are really weird.
It seems it's only pedestrians that can go about their business like generally sane human beings.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> Anyway, I have my first driving lesson in about 5 minutes so will be coming back to this argument on the other side


you think you're going to have a nasty crash 

we'll have to contact you by ouija later


----------



## scifisam (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Bikes aren't made of rubber. They've just got rubber bits on them.



The rubber bits are on the wheels and handlebars, the bits you could attack a car with. You'd have to dismantle a bike to be able to attempt to shove the metal bits through a car window, and by then I imagine the driver would have left while wondering why a shouting cyclist had chosen to sit on the side of the road and get out their tools.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> People in cars are really weird.
> It seems it's only pedestrians that can go about their business like generally sane human beings.


yeh when they're not having to point out the nice road to cyclists.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> Anyway, I have my first driving lesson in about 5 minutes so will be coming back to this argument on the other side


 
Nah - it seems to take a while after passing your test before you turn into the kind of numpty that has a meltdown because someone made a minor mistake or left a junction a second or two after the lights changed.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> People in cars are really weird.
> It seems it's only pedestrians that can go about their business like generally sane human beings.


Yet a lot of, if not most, people are all 3 atvarious times.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh when they're not having to point out the nice road to cyclists.


 
I don't think cyclists should be on the road generally, really.  Putting the soft-squishy-slow-things between the big-heavy-faster-moving-restricted-visibility things is an obviously dumb idea (residential shared spaces excepted).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> I don't think cyclists should be on the road generally, really.  Putting the soft-squishy-slow-things between the big-heavy-faster-moving-restricted-visibility things is an obviously dumb idea (residential shared spaces excepted).


better than having them on the pavement


----------



## sim667 (Jan 20, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Few things are more pleasurable than someone spewing vitriol in your direction from their car, and simply responding with a



A massive smile and a wave...... Sometimes even blow them a kiss.



Spymaster said:


> That's a very different situation. Two blokes sat in cars shouting at each other aren't going to hurt each other. In that case the threat escalates when one of them gets out of the car.



I've seen a man get dragged out of a car and have a kicking due to road rage.... so not that safe


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> Yet a lot of, if not most, people are all 3 atvarious times.


 
True.  With cyclists I think it's the feeling of vulnerability mixed in with self-righteousness and in cars there's a kind of 'this is my territory I'm driving round you fucking cunts' thing going on.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> I don't think cyclists should be on the road generally, really.  Putting the soft-squishy-slow-things between the big-heavy-faster-moving-restricted-visibility things is an obviously dumb idea (residential shared spaces excepted).



Councils and government don't want to invest in a proper cycle infrastructre.....


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I've seen a man get dragged out of a car and have a kicking due to road rage.... so not that safe



Well that's because he failed to react to the other guy getting out. Had he jumped out himself and struck first he'd have had a better chance. That's what the Farringdon Fist did!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Councils and government don't want to invest in a proper cycle infrastructre.....


 
I think the MAMILs don't really want it either because they would have to share it with people riding knackered old heavy bikes like in Holland.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's because he failed to react to the other guy getting out. Had he jumped out himself and struck first he'd have had a better chance. That's what the Farringdon Fist did!



So stop yourself being beaten up, by beating them up first.

Why how progressive of you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> I think the MAMILs don't really want it either because they would have to share it with people riding knackered old heavy bikes like in Holland.


as the second m in mamil stands for men the s is superfluous


----------



## sim667 (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> I think the MAMILs don't really want it either because they would have to share it with people riding knackered old heavy bikes like in Holland.


MAMIL?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> MAMIL?


middle aged men in lycra


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

sim667 said:


> So stop yourself being beaten up, by beating them up first.



Absofuckinglutely!

What are you, a Buddhist?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> as the second m in mamil stands for men the s is superfluous


 
It stands for 'man'.


----------



## bemused (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> middle aged men in lycra



I wasn't aware they had a collective noun I just call them gits.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> It stands for 'man'.








i've only ever heard it applied to a group of people. nonetheless, as plural of man not mans but men the s still superfluous.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> How do you figure that? A cyclist screaming abuse at your window is as much of a threat as anyone else screaming abuse at your window.


A cyclist is a rather comical figure, especially an angry one in Lycra. A bloke revving his engine at you is far more threatening


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> A cyclist is a rather comical figure, especially an angry one in Lycra. A bloke revving his engine at you is far more threatening


you must spend your life in fear of one vehicle or another


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Absofuckinglutely!
> 
> What are you, a Buddhist?



Have you used the phrase _I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 _yet?  And if not why not?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's because he failed to react to the other guy getting out. Had he jumped out himself and struck first he'd have had a better chance. That's what the Farringdon Fist did!


FFS. You be trolling.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i've only ever heard it applied to a group of people. nonetheless, as plural of man not mans but men the s still superfluous.


 
The 's' can be applied to acronynms as a plural with impunity.

Other examples with deviations from non-acronym grammar include WMDs, MOTs and DTs.
Greengrocers' apostrophes are optional.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> The 's' can be applied to acronynms as a plural with impunity.
> 
> Other examples with deviations from non-acronym grammar include WMDs, MOTs and DTs.
> Greengrocers' apostrophes are optional.


i wasn't suggesting a punishment as i can't think of one which all would agree fits the crime. wmds introduced by lazy journalists from the original wmd


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> FFS. You be trolling.



Well there was a little troll in there, but I doubt it's the bit that you mean.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Have you used the phrase _I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 _yet?  And if not why not?



So would you just sit in the car and wait to get dragged out and beaten up?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> A cyclist is a rather comical figure, especially an angry one in Lycra.



Not when he's screaming aggressive shit in your face.



> A bloke revving his engine at you is far more threatening



Except the bloke wasn't revving his engine at him when the cyclist got whacked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> So would you just sit in the car and wait to get dragged out and beaten up?


I hope I don't ever get in that situation!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Not when he's screaming aggressive shit in your face.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the bloke wasn't revving his engine at him when the cyclist got whacked.


I wasn't referring to a specific situation. I just know who I'd be more scared of.
And a cyclist is hardly a threat if he's just cussing you and you're sat there encased in glass and steel.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 20, 2015)

bemused said:


> I wasn't aware they had a collective noun I just call them gits.



If you are going to chastise middle aged men for wearing particular clothes I think a far better target is middle age men in suits.

Lycra is 100% functional and can also look good.  Whereas suits are generally pointless, restrictive and high maintenance and generally a ridiculous dress if they are to be worn on a daily basis.  Get the suits out of their cars and sitting on bikes and our streets will be better off for all concerned.


I'm also puzzled why people are still debating if it's okay to hit strangers.  Anyone with even the most basic manners doesn't go around hitting people.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I hope I don't ever get in that situation!



I hope so too!


----------



## bemused (Jan 20, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Lycra is 100% functional and can also look good.



Really depends on who is wearing it tbf


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> If you are going to chastise middle aged men for wearing particular clothes I think a far better target is middle age men in suits.



Fuck off!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Lycra is 100% functional and can also look good.


 


Well, I suppose it _can_...


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

How old is "middle-aged", out of academic interest?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How old is "middle-aged", out of academic interest?



45-60 I reckon.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> 45-60 I reckon.


 Good stuff, I'm not there yet.  Let the middle-aged bashing begin.  And then stop in about 6.5 years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2015)

its the businessman in his lycra and tie at fault here


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 20, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> If you are going to chastise middle aged men for wearing particular clothes I think a far better target is middle age men in suits.
> 
> Lycra is 100% functional and can also look good.  Whereas suits are generally pointless, restrictive and high maintenance and generally a ridiculous dress if they are to be worn on a daily basis.  Get the suits out of their cars and sitting on bikes and our streets will be better off for all concerned.



No.

95% of the time suits are just a work uniform no different from any other except you have to buy it yourself.  Lycra makes sense in competition, not at any other time, I used to row and my lycra only came out when it was race time, I'm not going to train in it because its absurd and I looked stupid even though I was 21 and in great shape.

Around my way we are plagued by mamils because we have Richmond Park on our doorstep, when I'm having a quiet pint in a local pub I don't want to see sweaty middle age men in skin tight lycra hobble up to the bar in those stupid shoes, its fucking nasty and they all to a man look terrible.  It very nearly puts me off my pint, obviously it doesn't because I've just paid £5 for the fucker.  

If I'm going to bowl a few balls in the nets I don't put my cricket whites on.  I honestly think a lot of these men think they look good in lycra, for the avoidance of doubt 99.9% of people look terrible in lycra.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

You want to try living in the newly crowned Cycling Capital of Britain (TM) if you want to see hoards of weekend MAMIL(s).  Great schools of city-dwellers that have no idea how to handle a country road by neither car nor bike.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How old is "middle-aged", out of academic interest?


 
27-55 if we take the middle third of mean UK lifespan.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And a cyclist is hardly a threat if he's just cussing you and you're sat there encased in glass and steel.



Doors can be opened (ask Simm's mate). And he could set about the car.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> 27-55 if we take the middle third of mean UK lifespan.


True enough, but I don't think these things are intended to be interpreted mathematically, much as I would love to do so.

How many "ages" does a human go through anyway?  The ones that spring to mind are:  Infancy, pre-pubescent, teenager, young adult, thirty-something, middle-aged, something about retirement agedish, elderly, senescent.  That's nine ages and middle-aged is the 6th one, which also doesn't make sense.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> not convinced, if I was prosecuting I'd argue that if they felt threatened (which is perfectly reasonable) they should have locked the car doors in response, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the legal niceties of "self defence" legal defence.



I suppose _protection of property_ would then be the justification. Damaging property is a crime and one is able to use reasonable force to prevent it.

"I thought the screaming, abusive nutjob, who had just chased us for 200 yards, was going to smash into the car to get at us".


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The problem I have is with you saying that losing one's temper and swearing after a motorist has just put your life in danger is _deserving_ a slap. What nonsense.



But he never said that. Not even once.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> But he never said that. Not even once.


He did


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Having been in that situation before, I can still sympathise with the cyclist. Cars are scary and it's reasonable to want to remonstratr angrily after a fright like that.



we can _all _sympathise with the cyclist.

But the plain fact of the matter is that what he did (cycling after the car for several hundred yards) makes _him_ the aggressor in the eyes of the law - and a self-defence plea perfectly plausible - and winnable - for the puncher.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Why is punching someone self-defence from someone voicing their opinion angrily?



you really don't know anything about the law and it's application, do you?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He did



only in your head. You just leave out the inconvenient bits to justify your hysterical reaction - and the cyclists.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> How old is "middle-aged", out of academic interest?



In the Mamil context it starts when you can afford the cost of a bike worth more than a hatchback, and shop at Rapha out of a sale period, and stops when you have children (unless you're mega rich).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> you really don't know anything about the law and it's application, do you?


Is calling someone a fucking prick against the law?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> only in your head. You just leave out the inconvenient bits to justify your hysterical reaction - and the cyclists.





Spymaster said:


> I'm saying that the cyclist deserved the clump for the "you fucking prick" screamed into his face, yes.


.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

sleaterkinney said:


> You can't make a comparison like that, it's just an aggressive prick picking on cyclists, he wouldn't have done the same to a car.



"you can't make what I consider to be a silly comparison, but it is perfectly OK for me to make one - in the same fuckin sentence?

Your post is complete projection.

You, like the rest of us, have absolutely no idea what he would or wouldn't have done.

The problem - both here and in the actual incident- is that people are not judging what happened/what was or wasn't justified etc on what actually took place in this particular incident. They instead choose to judge it through their collective, cumulative experience and indeed through their prejudices.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Is calling someone a fucking prick against the law?



Yep. It can be when you do it like he did.

Look up "threatening or abusive words or behaviour".


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Is calling someone a fucking prick against the law?



See spyman's reply - but that's not the point.

By virtue of the long chase/pursuit and confrontation, the cyclist very clearly and definably crosses the line from being 'the victim' to 'the aggressor'.

Just the same as if the Farringdon Fist had followed up his initial dig and battered the cyclist he would have crossed a clearly defined legal line and  moved from 'self-defence' to 'assault'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> "you can't make what I consider to be a silly comparison, but it is perfectly OK for me to make one - in the same fuckin sentence?
> 
> Your post is complete projection.
> 
> You, like the rest of us, have absolutely no idea what he would or wouldn't have done.


No, it's factual given the video I watched.


LiamO said:


> "
> The problem - both here and in the actual incident- is that people are not judging what happened/what was or wasn't justified etc on what actually took place in this particular incident. They instead choose to judge it through their collective, cumulative experience and indeed through their prejudices.


It's fair enough, most of the people reacting are cyclists like me who have seen idiots like that on the road. I would hazard a guess that neither you or Spymaster cycle in London and wouldn't know what we are talking about.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

That's not how I see it. I see a scared and angry cyclist unwisely but understandably deciding to not let such dangerous driving go unchallenged and spouting off without intending to escalate it beyond words and the thug driver getting out and battering him cos he can't bear to have his shit driving challenged. It's clear who the knucklehead is here. And you're both on his side cos it's clear that you think that it's fine to go round punching people.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

You're a misrepresenting toad too. Not surprised Thraigo's got his tongue wedged firmly up your arse.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 20, 2015)

awww, shame franny ain't here to back you up, bet you miss him 
ah well, ya got onkytonk at least


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You're a misrepresenting toad too. Not surprised thraigo's got his tongue wedged up your arse.


 
The cyclist is arguably guilty of common assault*, though the driver oversteps what would be considered self-defense by a great margin.

* - edit:  actually, on watching again I've changed my mind.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not how I see it. I see a scared and angry cyclist unwisely but understandably deciding to not let such dangerous driving go unchallenged and spouting off without intending to escalate it beyond words and the thug driver getting out and battering him cos he can't bear to have his shit driving challenged. It's clear who the knucklehead is here. And you're both on his side cos it's clear that you think that it's fine to go round punching people.





LiamO said:


> The problem - both here and in the actual incident- is that people are not judging what happened/what was or wasn't justified etc on what actually took place in this particular incident. They instead choose to judge it through their collective, cumulative experience and indeed through their prejudices.



thank you for endorsing my post so whole-heartedly.



Orang Utan said:


> It's clear who the knucklehead is here. And you're both on his side cos it's clear that you think that it's fine to go round punching people.



No. It really is not.



Orang Utan said:


> And you're both on his side



There's no-one 'on his side'. No-one.



Orang Utan said:


> cos it's clear that you think that it's fine to go round punching people.



Not only is that more projection but nobody has actually argued that either. 

What is clear to me, based on my own experience and observations, is that if you up the violence/aggression stakes you are taking a gamble. If you choose to take one, you should make it a calculated one because you might come unstuck. The cyclist did not stop to consider the easily predictable consequences of his actions and paid a  relatively small price for them. He could have been really unlucky and met the looper from the OP.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> The cyclist is arguably guilty of common assault, though the driver oversteps what would be considered self-defense by a great margin.



really? Not in my experience of Court. Anyways most people are convicted or acquitted on the basis of what they _say (after the event)_ not what they do during it.

Have you ever watched the Stevie G video for example?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> really? Not in my experience of Court. Anyways most people are convicted or acquitted on the basis of what they _say (after the event)_ not what they do during it.


 
Yeah, see edit of post.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not how I see it. I see a scared and angry cyclist ....



So scared he chased the car 200 yards to confront them.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> really? Not in my experience of Court. Anyways most people are convicted or acquitted on the basis of what they _say (after the event)_ not what they do during it.
> 
> Have you ever watched the Stevie G video for example?



Tbf it's hard to acquit him of destroying an entire generation of Liverpool squad development and progress by _that_ slip.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 20, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Tbf it's hard to acquit him of destroying an entire generation of Liverpool squad development and progress by _that_ slip.



Form is temporary, shitness is permanent.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not how I see it. I see a scared and angry cyclist unwisely but understandably deciding to not let such dangerous driving go unchallenged and spouting off without intending to escalate it beyond words





Whilst bullies are up there as the nadir of the playground dickheadery, lairy gobby twats that _give it the biggun*_, then run away and call teacher when it _comes on top*_ are right behind them (tbf that's not exactly what's happened here, but still...). 

Can we not just all agree all parties have been 'unwise yet understandable'?! We've all been saying the same thing for a good few pages now - it's just Spy inventing new and innovative ways of portraying Dances With Flame Haired Ape as the crybaby pacifist, and OU further portraying the cyclist as some poor Dalai Lycra. Both of which are turns of phrases I'm quite pleased with.

*apologies for the football parlance.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Dalai Lycra.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> The cyclist is arguably guilty of common assault*, though the driver oversteps what would be considered self-defense by a great margin.
> 
> * - edit:  actually, on watching again I've changed my mind.


judge 8ball has spoken


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Whilst bullies are up there as the nadir of the playground dickheadery, lairy gobby twats that _give it the biggun*_, then run away and call teacher when it _comes on top*_ are right behind them (tbf that's not exactly what's happened here, but still...).
> 
> Can we not just all agree all parties have been 'unwise yet understandable'?! We've all been saying the same thing for a good few pages now - it's just Spy inventing new and innovative ways of portraying Dances With Flame Haired Ape as the crybaby pacifist, and OU further portraying the cyclist as some poor Dalai Lycra. Both of which are turns of phrases I'm quite pleased with.
> 
> *apologies for the football parlance.



 had to quote as 'liking' this was not enough


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> So scared he chased the car 200 yards to confront them.



Thus taking the second of his three individual steps which put his jacket on a very shaky peg legally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> Thus taking the second of his three individual steps which put his jacket on a very shaky peg legally.


i prefer to think of it as putting his head in a noose before sentence.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> So scared he chased the car 200 yards to confront them.


Adrenaline.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Adrenaline.



No defence in the law. Why not use your adrenaline to power you _away _from confrontation rather than _towards_ it?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Adrenaline.


 
Yep, fight or flight stuff that adrenaline.

You can tell which one from which direction they run in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Adrenaline.


so he was running away in the wrong direction


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> No defence in the law. Why not use your adrenaline to power you _away _from confrontation rather than _towards_ it?


Cos you want to let them know what a fucking cunt they are


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> Yep, fight or flight stuff that adrenaline.
> 
> You can tell which one from which direction they run in.


Fight? Flight? YELL!


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Cos you want to let them know what a fucking cunt they are



You must be the most aggressive 'pacifist' I know.

There is no _real _difference between you and the Farringdon Fist - you only differ on methodology.

Your weapon of choice being your gob (or your typing fingers) whilst his is his left hand. Strangely you think that being so passive-aggressive (but aggressive nonetheless) makes you somehow morally superior. You are the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fight? Flight? YELL!


fart


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> Yep, fight or flight stuff that adrenaline.
> 
> *You can tell which one from which direction they run in*.



brilliant. 

but you left off the most common one - Freeze - which is the default for most people in potentially violent situations.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

A key difference is that a gob is unlikely to create unintended consequences that you will prove legally liable for.  Best to stick to the gob, really.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> Yeah, see edit of post.



so what is your learned opinion _now_?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> A key difference is that a gob is unlikely to create unintended consequences _*that you will prove legally liable for*_.



really? Threatening words and behaviour anyone?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

kabbes said:


> A key difference is that a gob is unlikely to create unintended consequences that you will prove legally liable for.



actually a gob is precisely what tends to create 'unintended consequences'.

As an example, an after-school playground exchange between two mothers kicked off a feud between crims in Limerick (who were erstwhile best buddies) that left any number of people dead, maimed or jailed. 

Same in Crumlin in Dublin. At least a dozen dead there so far.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> so what is your learned opinion _now_?


 
We got a _reader_ in the house...


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> We got a _reader_ in the house...



No, seriously 8ball. You said you had revised your opinion. So what is it now?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Whilst bullies are up there as the nadir of the playground dickheadery, lairy gobby twats that _give it the biggun*_, then run away and call teacher when it _comes on top*_ are right behind them (tbf that's not exactly what's happened here, but still...).
> 
> *Can we not just all agree all parties have been 'unwise yet understandable'?*! We've all been saying the same thing for a good few pages now - it's just Spy inventing new and innovative ways of portraying Dances With Flame Haired Ape as the crybaby pacifist, and OU further portraying the cyclist as some poor Dalai Lycra. Both of which are turns of phrases I'm quite pleased with.
> 
> *apologies for the football parlance.



I don't understand why the audi driver pulled into the ASL* 
I do understand why the cyclist chased after and shouted at the driver.
I do understand why the passenger got out and lamped the cyclist.

These are - in time order - the three acts of aggression that I see in the video.

*well, I do. It's because they think they are going to be held up by the cyclists. But in saying that their maneouvre is understandable, I feel like I'd be saying that I'm sort of ok with it, like I am with the cyclist and passenger actions - not going so far as to say that I condone or support either but I've no real issue with it either, whereas I do have a real issue with the driver pulling into the ASL and sort of around the two cyclists who were waiting there.
I don't get how anyone who drives around a busy city (London = all day every weekday, elsewhere = rush hours) thinks they are going to be held up by cyclists. It's so much quicker cycling.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> No, seriously 8ball. You said you had revised your opinion. So what is it now?


 
I thought that post was clear enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

8ball said:


> I thought that post was clear enough.


that's your current opinion?

raise your game


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

The thing is BigTom he probably didn't actually think he'd get anywhere quicker. He was just an arrogant arsehole who didn't want a couple of cyclists in front of him. The entitled  type who thinks asb's are ridiculous cos roads are for cars.

All the more reason to steer clear of him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> really? Threatening words and behaviour anyone?


There's a big difference between calling someone a prick and threatening them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> You must be the most aggressive 'pacifist' I know.
> 
> There is no _real _difference between you and the Farringdon Fist - you only differ on methodology.
> 
> Your weapon of choice being your gob (or your typing fingers) whilst his is his left hand. Strangely you think that being so passive-aggressive (but aggressive nonetheless) makes you somehow morally superior. You are the same.


Except I don't seek to wound others physically.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Except I don't seek to wound others physically.


wounding them psychically better


----------



## LiamO (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Except I don't seek to wound others physically.



yes. As I said you have a different methodology


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 20, 2015)

The closest I've come to getting lamped on my bike was when I just shook my head and laughed at someone for screeching past me dangerously close only to get pulled up at a red light two seconds later. The pointlessness of it. They were spitting and raging which just made me laugh more. Dickhead tough guys in dickhead cars getting nowhere.

I've chased people down a couple of times and had a frank exchange of opinions too, despite being a streak of piss. Sometimes it just fires you up, especially when it crosses from carelessness into contempt. Easier when it's a taxi driver with passengers (it often is) as they're kind of forced to keep their cool a bit. Mostly people are defensive, sometimes apologetic.

The wiggling of the pinky is quite a good one too, you'll usually get a few smiles off pedestrians or other drivers for that. It might have been my response to a situation like that Audi driver, a joke to share amongst other riders in the box.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> The closest I've come to getting lamped on my bike was when I just shook my head and laughed at someone for screeching past me dangerously close only to get pulled up at a red light two seconds later. The pointlessness of it. They were spitting and raging which just made me laugh more. Dickhead tough guys in dickhead cars getting nowhere.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Dalai Lycra


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

In my calmer days, i used to shout non-swears at drivers, like 'you silly billy!' and 'you are RUBBISH at driving!'
Nowadays I either mutter to myself or yell impotently to their disappearing and  oblivious back ends


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

LiamO said:


> actually a gob is precisely what tends to create 'unintended consequences'.



Tbh, I don't think anyone but Apeface really believes that should be able to say _*anything* _to anyone without reasonably inviting a punch on the nose.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Tbh, I don't think anyone but Apeface really believes that should be able to say _*anything* _to anyone without reasonably inviting a punch on the nose.


I don't believe that though. You could certainly provoke most anyone to violence with a few choice words. It would not be reasonable to do so though. But I do think a fucking prick at a dangerous and careless driver is perfectly understandable, hitting them for it, not so.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> ... i used to shout non-swears at drivers, like 'you silly billy!' and 'you are RUBBISH at driving!'



Ace! 



> Nowadays I either mutter to myself or yell impotently to their disappearing and oblivious back ends



And that's when you're REALLY angry! 

I think you're a kind, sweet, rather naive man, and the world would be a better place if everyone was like you.

Unfortunately ...


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

I did most of my central London cycling in the early 90s when there were a lot less cyclists about and one thing I clearly remember is the amount of verbal comment I used to get off drivers and even pedestrians. I've been abused for passing cars on the inside and the outside by drivers who thought they knew the highway code better than I did. I also once got my glasses knocked off by an angry pedestrian at the lights on Monmouth St because my brakes screeched a little when I came to a halt at the lights (bang on the line, there's an ASL there now). Luckily it was witnessed by a friendly copper and I got 50 quid for my broken glasses out of the horrible cunt and a friendly optician popped a new screw in for free. But of course it's cyclists shouting at drivers that's the real problem. Stopping cunts in Audis from going about their lawful business.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Squeaky brakes!!!!

Fighting talk.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Squeaky brakes!!!!
> 
> Fighting talk.


He went mental. He thought I was squeaking my brakes at him deliberately. In fact it was a winter Friday and I only tuned my brakes once a week. If it had been a Monday morning I would have glided to a silent stop.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> He went mental. He thought I was squeaking my brakes at him deliberately. In fact it was a winter Friday and I only tuned my brakes once a week.



You should have tuned them to a lower frequency.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 20, 2015)

Why is it assumed that the Audi driver is a male city wanker? He quite possibly is, but he certainly wasn't the violent one, that was just the lunatic passenger. We know nothing of the driver, it could have been, say, a pregnant wife or the recently test passed 17 year old son driving. Having YOU FUCKING PRICK shouted at either of them would put most blokes into protective mode.

A lot of drivers don't really know what ASL's are, I've only learnt what's what about them from here and I'm a cyclist and car driver. They are a fairly recent addition to the roads, I think a hell of a lot of drivers have no idea what the highway code says about them as they passed their tests many years ago. Even more confusing when you regularly see motorbikes and scooters in the mix, as well as buses and taxis sat in there due to light changes. These are professional drivers who are making cock ups in the ASL. Driving in London is a fucking nightmare at times, the is so much going on, other traffic, padestrians, road works, diversions, sat navs, sometimes people do make an honest mistake and cock up. I cock up in my car, I cock up on my bike at times, I know I should have done better and try to learn from it.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You should have tuned them to a lower frequency.



Or oiled them


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 20, 2015)

Isn't it bleedin' obvious what an ASL is ?
There's a diagram of a bike in them.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> A lot of drivers don't really know what ASL's are, I've only learnt what's what about them from here and I'm a cyclist and car driver.


 It's not hard to work out is it and the big picture of a fucking bicycle kind of gives it away. Even if you passed before the current rule 178 was introduced it's still a solid white line before a traffic light so you shouldn't be crossing it.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> Or oiled them


My brakes were always well lubricated but that wouldn't stop them squeaking. 
And if they'd been remotely dangerous they would have got a mid-week tune.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's not hard to work out is it and the big picture of a fucking bicycle kind of gives it away. Even if you passed before the current rule 178 was introduced it's still a solid white line before a traffic light so you shouldn't be crossing it.




If you asked 100 drivers what the rules were I'd wager you'd get 100 different answers. The amount of delivery van/bus/taxi traffic you see sitting in them in London is frightening


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> If you asked 100 drivers what the rules were I'd wager you'd get 100 different answers. The amount of delivery van/bus/taxi traffic you see sitting in them in London is frightening


Completely understandable seeing as they aren't enforced, it's not ignorance.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 20, 2015)

Drivers enter ASLs deliberately - they have decided that like speed limits etc, they are part of "the war on the motorist."


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2015)

deadringer said:


> Why is it assumed that the Audi driver is a male city wanker? He quite possibly is, but he certainly wasn't the violent one, that was just the lunatic passenger. We know nothing of the driver, it could have been, say, a pregnant wife or the recently test passed 17 year old son driving. Having YOU FUCKING PRICK shouted at either of them would put most blokes into protective mode.
> 
> A lot of drivers don't really know what ASL's are, I've only learnt what's what about them from here and I'm a cyclist and car driver. They are a fairly recent addition to the roads, I think a hell of a lot of drivers have no idea what the highway code says about them as they passed their tests many years ago. Even more confusing when you regularly see motorbikes and scooters in the mix, as well as buses and taxis sat in there due to light changes. These are professional drivers who are making cock ups in the ASL. Driving in London is a fucking nightmare at times, the is so much going on, other traffic, padestrians, road works, diversions, sat navs, sometimes people do make an honest mistake and cock up. I cock up in my car, I cock up on my bike at times, I know I should have done better and try to learn from it.



No way that the audi driver made an honest mistake. They were stopped behind the ASL, roughly where they should have been. Then when two cyclists had the audacity to use the ASL, they pulled into the ASL and sort of around them. This was a deliberate move, and although there are lots of drivers who don't know what an ASL is, given they were stopped behind the first stop line, I think it'd be fair to assume they do. The cyclist goes over and quietly tells them it's a cycle area. There's no window winding down to ask what he means or why it matters, they just drive off at speed (because if they don't go at speed they are going to hit the truck coming the other way that they've just put themselves in line with). The driver is a cockwomble, no doubt about it. Either ignorant and stupid or a selfish entitled wanker (or both, they aren't exclusive categories).
Don't dress the situation here up into something it isn't.

I've spoken to loads of drivers in ASLs, asking them politely if they understand what an ASL is and why it's there. I only do this if I've seen them roll into the ASL and know they could have safely stopped behind the first line. I've no issue with that really, although I think anyone should be able to look at an ASL and take a pretty damn good guess at what it means. Some drivers I reckon really didn't have a clue what it is, many don't understand why it's there so ignore it, some just try to ignore me or very occasionally spout off about road tax/licence/insurance, which I kind of enjoy - I have a driver's licence and insurance so it's easy to throw that back at them, and I just claim to have an Audi A3 that I don't pay road tax on - there genuinely are a couple of specs of Audi A3 that fall into Band A of VED which means they pay nothing, but I don't own one - or any car for that matter - it tends to shut them up.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> It's not hard to work out is it and the big picture of a fucking bicycle kind of gives it away. Even if you passed before the current rule 178 was introduced it's still a solid white line before a traffic light so you shouldn't be crossing it.



True, but when you're bumper to bumper in slow, heavy city traffic you often don't see what's painted on the road. Experienced city drivers should know that there's an ASB at busy junctions but a lot of the time they're just looking at the lights and the car in front.

That doesn't excuse the Audi driver though. He was just a cock.


----------



## Onket (Jan 20, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Drivers enter ASLs deliberately - they have decided that like speed limits etc, they are part of "the war on the motorist."


Yes. All drivers are the same.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 20, 2015)

Was reading this thread earlier today (congratulations to all ), and on my travels later on I saw this, so I stopped to take a picture just for this thread in the certain knowledge of making some of you happy 

Enjoy 


(Additional big ups to Bahnhof Strasse and gentlegreen )


----------



## deadringer (Jan 20, 2015)

BigTom said:


> No way that the audi driver made an honest mistake. They were stopped behind the ASL, roughly where they should have been. Then when two cyclists had the audacity to use the ASL, they pulled into the ASL and sort of around them. This was a deliberate move, and although there are lots of drivers who don't know what an ASL is, given they were stopped behind the first stop line, I think it'd be fair to assume they do. The cyclist goes over and quietly tells them it's a cycle area. There's no window winding down to ask what he means or why it matters, they just drive off at speed (because if they don't go at speed they are going to hit the truck coming the other way that they've just put themselves in line with). The driver is a cockwomble, no doubt about it. Either ignorant and stupid or a selfish entitled wanker (or both, they aren't exclusive categories).
> Don't dress the situation here up into something it isn't.
> 
> I've spoken to loads of drivers in ASLs, asking them politely if they understand what an ASL is and why it's there. I only do this if I've seen them roll into the ASL and know they could have safely stopped behind the first line. I've no issue with that really, although I think anyone should be able to look at an ASL and take a pretty damn good guess at what it means. Some drivers I reckon really didn't have a clue what it is, many don't understand why it's there so ignore it, some just try to ignore me or very occasionally spout off about road tax/licence/insurance, which I kind of enjoy - I have a driver's licence and insurance so it's easy to throw that back at them, and I just claim to have an Audi A3 that I don't pay road tax on - there genuinely are a couple of specs of Audi A3 that fall into Band A of VED which means they pay nothing, but I don't own one - or any car for that matter - it tends to shut them up.




I wasn't saying that The Audi did make an honest mistake, it was two separate points in the same post.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> Was reading this thread earlier today (congratulations to all ), and on my travels later on I saw this, so I stopped to take a picture just for this thread in the certain knowledge of making some of you happy
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> ...


 Didn't realise anyone was taking photos of my driving lesson.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> True, but when you're bumper to bumper in heavy city traffic you often don't see what's painted on the road. Experienced city drivers should know that there's an ASB at busy junctions but a lot of the time they're just looking at the lights and the car in front.
> 
> That doesn't excuse the Audi driver though. He was just a cock.



You shouldn't be "bumper to bumper".


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> Didn't realise anyone was taking photos of my driving lesson.


I've seen a few A3 learner cars tbf (not in ditches though )


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You shouldn't be "bumper to bumper".



LOL!  

Ever driven in London????


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> LOL!
> 
> Ever driven in London????



No. I'm currently learning to drive in Birmingham and am aware that what is taught doesn't always match the reality. However I see no reason why a safe gap (so you can see "tyre and tarmac") can't be left. It would help ease congestion as it leaves room to go round someone if they break down or stop to let someone in/out.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> No. I'm currently learning to drive in Birmingham and am aware that what is taught doesn't always match the reality.



Indeed.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed.



What's the reason that you can't leave "tyre and tarmac"?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2015)

No reason. I always leave that much gap.  It's for my own benefit -- if the car in front breaks down or gets stuck, I want an exit route.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What's the reason that you can't leave "tyre and tarmac"?


Impatience. Gaps between cars vary a lot actually, I used to spend a lot of time weaving between them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What's the reason that you can't leave "tyre and tarmac"?



Theoretically you can and should, and advanced drivers will. Plod are trained in Roadcraft to leave space to be able to exit the lane in an emergency.

In reality the majority do what's in that picture.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Theoretically you can and should, and advanced drivers will. Plod are trained in Roadcraft to leave space to be able to exit the lane in an emergency.
> 
> In reality the majority do what's in that picture.



It's taught as part of basic driving lessons. Failing to observe it can get you failed on a driving test.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You shouldn't be "bumper to bumper".



People have lost their jumpers in such circumstances.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> It's taught as part of basic driving lessons. Failing to observe it can get you failed on a driving test.



For better or worse, a lot of what's taught to pass the test goes out of the window after the license is procured.






Even in Birmingham.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> For better or worse, a lot of what's taught to pass the test goes out of the window after the license is procured.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's the reason that you don't observe the tyre and tarmac rule?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What's the reason that you don't observe the tyre and tarmac rule?



I do.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

maomao said:


> Didn't realise anyone was taking photos of my driving lesson.



How did it go, btw?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Drivers enter ASLs deliberately



And you flash your "light from hell" and toot your horn to make you 'feel better'.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I do.



Why such derision then?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> Why such derision then?



What derison?

I try to leave space, be aware of what's going on, 3 looks +1 then another for bikers, cyclists, peds, etc etc ...

I've still very occasionally found myself rolling into an ASB or even stuck in a box junction   because I've been daydreaming or tired. You will too. Nobody's perfect.

That doesn't mean we're trying to murder or injure cyclists, or that we're making some kind of petrolhead statement. In those circumstances we really don't need some tit on a bike (apologies Tom) to tell us that we fucked up or key the motor.

Some years ago I ballsed-up the Great Portland Street junction going across the Marylebone Road and got stuck. I sheepishly looked over to see what I was blocking and it was a police car. Expecting to get busted I looked at the plod driver. He just tilted his head and raised his hands palms up, in a kind of Jesus position, effectively saying 'you crap wanker'. I wanted to dig a hole and dive in.

He didn't need to book me and that look was far more shaming than any amount of "YOU FUCKING PRICK!"


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> How did it go, btw?


First lesson, stopping and starting. No public roads or anything.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 20, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> its the businessman in his lycra and tie at fault here


Is it DC, is it really?


----------



## Sweet FA (Jan 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> What's the reason that you can't leave "tyre and tarmac"?


If you leave a gap, crazy bastard cyclists start weaving through the traffic


----------



## LiamO (Jan 21, 2015)

deadringer said:


> A lot of drivers don't really know what ASL's are...



There you are then, They shouldn't be allowed in Central London then. Not til they have been to monkey-boy's school of big-city cycling etiquete... THE FUCKIN PRICKS!


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 21, 2015)

Any news on caveman arrest yet?

---


> When police in Havering became aware of the video, Havering CID spoke to the cyclist involved, but he told them he did not want to pursue the case.







> Looks like he's being done for assault.


Good should be done for attempted murder


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

Looks like he's being done for assault.

http://road.cc/content/news/140715-suspect-charged-after-essex-road-rage-attack-cyclist


----------



## sim667 (Jan 21, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Theoretically you can and should, and advanced drivers will. Plod are trained in Roadcraft to leave space to be able to exit the lane in an emergency.
> 
> In reality the majority do what's in that picture.




Roadcraft?!? Fuck me, what a name.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 21, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Roadcraft?!? Fuck me, what a name.


I bought it when I was a motorcyclist, but of course never actually read it.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 21, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> I bought it when I was a motorcyclist, but of course never actually read it.



Oh right, I must have misunderstood..... i thought its what coppers are calling driving now.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

http://www.roadcraft.co.uk/


----------



## maomao (Jan 21, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Oh right, I must have misunderstood..... i thought its what coppers are calling driving now.


Both unfortunately. I used to have a book for cyclists with roadcraft in the title. It featured pictures of sensibly dressed middle aged cyclists with beards thrusting themselves onto roundabouts from the inside lane of dual carriageways while making exaggerated hand signals. Looked like a good way to get killed to me.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 21, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Roadcraft?!? Fuck me, what a name.



It's exactly the type of pretension you can expect from the Partridge-esque ranks of "advanced" drivers.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

dlx1 said:


> Good should be done for attempted murder


----------



## sim667 (Jan 21, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> It's exactly the type of pretension you can expect from the Partridge-esque ranks of "advanced" drivers.



I looked at doing advanced driving but it seems the way you learn is just to become a taxi driver by someone who thinks they can do everything better than you.

Fuck. That.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I looked at doing advanced driving but it seems the way you learn is just to become a taxi driver by someone who thinks they can do everything better than you.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2015)

Used to want to do advanced driving. spent a day with an instructor for work once and still use what I picked up when out in a car or van


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I looked at doing advanced driving but it seems the way you learn is just to become a taxi driver by someone who thinks they can do everything better than you.
> 
> Fuck. That.


Think you are a bit wrong there


----------



## sim667 (Jan 21, 2015)

ddraig said:


> Think you are a bit wrong there



I typed it wrong too..... I meant to say "become a taxi driver for"

When I looked at you joined local groups to advise each other.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 21, 2015)

Liam, shouting at someone really isn't the same thing as hitting them. You can (unintentionally) kill someone by hitting them, but saying "you fucking prick" can only hurt their feelings. Better to get the anger out that way IMO.


----------



## maomao (Jan 21, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Liam, shouting at someone really isn't the same thing as hitting them. You can (unintentionally) kill someone by hitting them, but saying "you fucking prick" can only hurt their feelings. Better to get the anger out that way IMO.


http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/llandudno-woman-frightened-death-man-7468795


----------



## scifisam (Jan 21, 2015)

maomao said:


> http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/llandudno-woman-frightened-death-man-7468795


Yeah, that's exactly the same. 

You're not really arguing that hitting someone is no more likely to kill them than shouting at them, are you? Liam was but you're no Liam.


----------



## maomao (Jan 21, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, that's exactly the same.
> 
> You're not really arguing that hitting someone is no more likely to kill them than shouting at them, are you? Liam was but you're no Liam.


No, I was just being pedantic about the possibility of being frightened to death.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

scifisam said:


> You're not really arguing that hitting someone is no more likely to kill them than shouting at them, are you? Liam was ...



Where?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 21, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Where?



In monkey-boy's head of course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 21, 2015)

LiamO said:


> In monkey-boy's head of course.


Eh?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2015)

generic abuse from tough guys! "lol", pathetic really


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

Draigo turns up as soon as someone says "monkey-boy".

He's well trained, I'll give him that.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Draigo turns up as soon as someone says "monkey-boy".
> 
> He's well trained, I'll give him that.


how much of a child are you?
aware that you are a grandad but ffs


----------



## ddraig (Jan 21, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Draigo turns up as soon as someone says "monkey-boy".
> 
> He's well trained, I'll give him that.


an alert said a new post was posted so i came to look, 
i'm reading it and ignoring most of it but reply when i feel like it

pretty straightforward really


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

That's not childish.
















That's childish.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 21, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Where?


In his posts. He said there was no difference between shouting at someone and hitting them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2015)

scifisam said:


> In his posts. He said there was no difference between shouting at someone and hitting them.



Where? 

Quote them.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 21, 2015)

dlx1 said:


> Good should be done for attempted murder



Genocide!


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 21, 2015)

Here's some of that roadcraft the police are trained in:


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 21, 2015)

wow, what a cunt. making the rules up to suit himself. undertaking is never accceptable. too many cyclists and motorcyclists do it too.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 21, 2015)

pedestrians too


----------



## LiamO (Jan 22, 2015)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, that's exactly the same.
> 
> You're not really arguing that hitting someone is no more likely to kill them than shouting at them, are you? Liam was but you're no Liam.


 
@scifasm - where, exactly did I say this? You fuckin chancer


----------



## LiamO (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> wow, what a cunt. making the rules up to suit himself.



sounds like you in any debate


----------



## LiamO (Jan 22, 2015)

scifisam said:


> In his posts. He said there was no difference between shouting at someone and hitting them.



Is english not your first language? Or are you just a fantasist?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Eh?



sorry monkey-boy, it was scifasm wot said it. _All you liberal drips look the same to me_


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jan 22, 2015)

Would it be fair enough to hit you now, Liam?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Here's some of that roadcraft the police are trained in:




The copper was wrong to pass him on the inside but why wasn't the cyclist taking position for the bus/bike lane? The road is wide and empty except for the police car behind him.

And when did Nasser Hussain join the Met?


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The copper was wrong to pass him on the inside but why wasn't the cyclist taking position for the bus/bike lane? The road is wide and empty except for the police car behind him.


Five seconds after he passes the red car turning in from the left he looks back and sees the cop car coming up behind him and to his left.


----------



## Boycey (Jan 22, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Here's some of that roadcraft the police are trained in:




inconsiderate twat of a cyclist- he takes the lane after going underneath the waterloo station railway and expects to keep it until kennington road while motorists look at a bus lane to his left??? allowing motorists space to pass when it's there is just good manners...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Five seconds after he passes the red car turning in from the left he looks back and sees the cop car coming up behind him and to his left.



But he _doesn't_ look until the car's almost beside him and he could have moved over as soon as he passed the pothole after the crossing almost 50 meters before the the bus lane.

And what about Nasser?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The copper was wrong to pass him on the inside but why wasn't the cyclist taking position for the bus/bike lane? The road is wide and empty except for the police car behind him.
> 
> And when did Nasser Hussain join the Met?


I know that road and he's in position to take a right onto Kennington Road. He has every right to be in that lane in primary position. Drivers need to get this through their heads. A bicycle is just another vehicle. You wouldn't try to do that to a car, would you? 
In any case, undertaking is illegal and the cop knows it.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But he doesn't look until the car's almost beside him and he could have moved over as soon as he passed the pothole after the crossing almost 50 meters before the the bus lane.


Helmet mirror?


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> The copper was wrong to pass him on the inside [..]



He was high speed filtering.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I know that road and he's in position to take a right onto Kennington Road. He has every right to be in that lane in primary position. Drivers need to get this through their heads. A bicycle is just another vehicle.



The right turn is over 100 yards away and there's practically no other traffic. He could easily have used the bike lane and moved out behind the police car rather than try to make the car follow him all the way to the junction.



> In any case, undertaking is illegal and the cop knows it.



You can if the vehicle in front is signalling right and it's safe to pass inside but that's not the case here. The copper shouldn't have entered the bus lane either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

I would still stay in lane, rather than risk having to cross over again. It's not far and it's not a fast road.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 22, 2015)

If he'd have moved left the copper would have ploughed into him.  Moving suddenly and unpredictably is best avoided.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Depends what speed he's doing as well. If he's approaching the speed limit (I used to be able to do 30 on a flat road easily when I was a young man) why the fuck should he give way?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I would still stay in lane, rather than risk having to cross over again. It's not far and it's not a fast road.



Yeah just watched it again. You're probably right.

Thing is if it was a car he'd have been indicating right and the car behind would have known what he was doing. The cyclist likely wasn't indicating and plod thought he was going to do that all the way down the road.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 22, 2015)

Boycey said:


> inconsiderate twat of a cyclist- he takes the lane after going underneath the waterloo station railway and expects to keep it until kennington road while motorists look at a bus lane to his left??? allowing motorists space to pass when it's there is just good manners...



This is it tbh. Kind of like a Don't Be A Dick overruling the highway code. Stops the driving world seeing cyclists as The Enemy and cyclists feeling like a persecuted minority.

Before seeing the vid I was initially sympathetic to the cyclist as I sometimes Pied Piper a load of cars up (the rightmost of a 3 lane) The Mall prior to my right turn on my route home and tbh I'm getting in lane when I can before negotiating that move when there's loads of narky rush hour traffic around me. But I this (the vid) instance I would have used the bus lane - if for nothing else it's good for the soul to be accommodating to other road users when you can be.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> This is it tbh. Kind of like a Don't Be A Dick overruling the highway code. Stops the driving world seeing cyclists as The Enemy and cyclists feeling like a persecuted minority.
> 
> Before seeing the vid I was initially sympathetic to the cyclist as I sometimes Pied Piper a load of cars up (the rightmost of a 3 lane) The Mall prior to my right turn on my route home and tbh I'm getting in lane when I can before negotiating that move when there's loads of narky rush hour traffic around me. But I this (the vid) instance I would have used the bus lane - if for nothing else it's good for the soul to be accommodating to other road users when you can be.


But he would have been splatted by the cop if he'd done that.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> But he would have been splatted by the cop if he'd done that.



Are you being serious?


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Ted Striker said:


> Are you being serious?


Yes, if he'd moved left while the cop was undertaking he would have hit it. He couldn't have moved left before the red car turning in and having a look behind him.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Youtube videos are shite for this sort of analysis. I would have thought that the cyclist had enough time to move back into the cycle lane after the red minivan or pedestrian crossing (you're technically not allowed to change lanes over zig-zag lines_ edit: think I got this wrong see further posts_).
He didn't look back I reckon until after he heard the cop undertaking.

BUT you can't tell fuck all from the youtube video, you'd need to have been there. You can't tell that he isn't signalling right (although I agree he probably isn't). You don't know how many cars there are behind him - he might be able to move over to let one pass, but what if there are more, will he be able to move back out to make the right hand turn? If not, then stay in the RH lane definitely.

OU knows this road. I would always go with that knowledge rather than making my own judgement based on a YT vid. Safety first and staying in the RH lane for that short distance is almost certainly safer than changing lanes twice.


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2015)

No doubt undertaking him was an impatient silly thing to do, I'm sure he didn't do anything productive with the two minutes he saved going around him.

But, I'm still not sure what having an argument in the middle of the road does to promote road safety? He had his number plate he could have simply sent the video to the Police, they even have an email just for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Yes, if he'd moved left while the cop was undertaking he would have hit it. He couldn't have moved left before the red car turning in and having a look behind him.



He had plenty of time to move over if he wanted to. He didn't even know the cop car was there until it passed him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> (you're technically not allowed to change lanes over zig-zag lines).



I don't think that's right.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

bemused said:


> No doubt undertaking him was an impatient silly thing to do, I'm sure he didn't do anything productive with the two minutes he saved going around him.
> 
> But, I'm still not sure what having an argument in the middle of the road does to promote road safety? He had his number plate he could have simply sent the video to the Police, they even have an email just for it.



The cop didn't save any time. The cyclist caught up at a later set of lights. The police driver would have gone through exactly the same green phase at those lights if he'd stayed behind the cyclist. There's this idea that cyclists hold drivers up, that drivers save time by passing them, which is simply false (in London all day every day, elsewhere at rush hour), but which ime most drivers who don't cycle, truly believe. They certainly act like it anyway.

Cyclist wanted the driver's badge number. I don't think that's unfair though I wouldn't be arsed to alter my journey to get it, I'd just complain using the licence plate. Copper should (legally iirc) have told him his badge number, name and police station, but instead decided to argue it.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think that's right.



yeah, looking at the annotated highway code, I think I am wrong, you're not allowed to overtake but it doesn't say anything about changing lanes. I think I've remembered this from a discussion with one of our instructor trainers and it must have been something that isn't clear or I've just misremembered and it's that you aren't allowed to filter on a bike where there are zig-zig lines, I'll ask if I remember.


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> There's this idea that cyclists hold drivers up, that drivers save time by passing them, which is simply false (in London all day every day, elsewhere at rush hour), but which time most drivers who don't cycle, truly believe. They certainly act like it anyway.



I tend to think it's something to with the perception of speed. Doing 15mph on a bike feels pretty decent but feels like a crawl in the car. So drivers feel like they are going very slow sitting behind bike. I do agree with you about central London, I'm forced to drive into London once or twice a year and people still pull off the lights like they are on the starting grid at Monza


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Depends what speed he's doing as well. If he's approaching the speed limit (I used to be able to do 30 on a flat road easily when I was a young man) why the fuck should he give way?



If you're able to safely give way, why not give way instead of pissing people off? It's like plonkers who drive at 70mph along the outside lane of motorways and won't move over. It's not your job to enforce speed limits, you're not policemen.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

bemused said:


> ... people still pull off the lights like they are on the starting grid at Monza



And get stopped by the next lights 100 yards up the road.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> If you're able to safely give way, why not give way instead of pissing people off? It's like plonkers who drive at 70mph along the outside lane of motorways. It's not your job to enforce speed limits. You're not policemen.


Would a car doing thirty in that lane duck into the left hand lane to let a car doing 40 past? It's not about enforcing speed limits, it's about being treated as equal. If it's an old lady with Sturmey Archer gears doing 12mph then yes, get left but if the cycle is performing as a car would why should he give way?


----------



## bemused (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> And get stopped by the next lights 100 yards up the road.



100 yards is a bit optimistic, normally it's 10 yards the other-side of the junction. On the cyclist side of that fence are guys falling over because they can't use cleats properly, that is a pretty common sight.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Would a car doing thirty in that lane duck into the left hand lane to let a car doing 40 past?



No because a car can't use the bus lane and should be indicating right if he's turning. If he was going straight and there's a clear lane on the left he should be in it anyway. 



> It's not about enforcing speed limits, it's about being treated as equal .... if the cycle is performing as a car would why should he give way?



So it's a statement?


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> No because a car can't use the bus lane and should be indicating right if he's turning. If he was going straight and there's a clear lane on the left he should be in it anyway.



Do you know he wasn't indicating? If I was holding that lane I would be indicating very early in order to let drivers know that's why I was there.



> So it's a statement?



Not at all. It's about behaving like any other road user (with equivalent acceleration/speed) because that's the best way not to get killed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Do you know he wasn't indicating? If I was holding that lane I would be indicating very early in order to let drivers know that's why I was there.



No, but I doubt it, and his right hand seems to come up off the handlebars. If he was indicating right his only legitimate complaint about being passed inside would be that the the cop used the bus lane.



> Not at all. It's about behaving like any other road user (with equivalent acceleration/speed) because that's the best way not to get killed.



But you're not like any other road users, you're on a bike and more vulnerable. Cars can and do exceed the speed limits. When you can safely let them past is it really in your interests to slow other traffic, knowing full well that the driver behind might be a dick?


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> But you're not like any other road users, you're on a bike and more vulnerable. Cars can and do exceed the speed limits. When you can safely let them past is it really in your interests to slow other traffic, knowing full well that the driver behind might be a dick?


Your making a lot of assumptions about what's safe. I suggest you try a week or two riding in London on a bicycle. The gutter is not a lane and rarely a safe place to be.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Your making a lot of assumptions about what's safe.



That's why I'm asking you the question.



> I suggest you try a week or two riding in London on a bicycle.



Fuck that. But I do ride a motorbike. 



> The gutter is not a lane and rarely a safe place to be.



Nobody's suggesting that you ride in the gutter, just to let faster traffic go when there's a safe option to.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Your making a lot of assumptions about what's safe. I suggest you try a week or two riding in London on a bicycle. The gutter is not a lane and rarely a safe place to be.


Yup, most London roads are too narrow for cars to pass bicycles safely but most drivers seem to feel differently, so often the only safe option is to stop them passing by taking the primary position and not giving way, even if drivers try to intimidate you into doing so.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody's suggesting that you ride in the gutter, just to let faster traffic go when there's a safe option to.



I would. Approaching a traffic light where I intend to turn right and is at a point in its cycle where both I and any motorists behind me will be stopped by it is not one of those situations.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> I would. Approaching a traffic light where I intend to turn right and is at a point in its cycle where both I and any motorists behind me will be stopped by it is not one of those situations.



Ok, I've agreed that, in this case. I thought you were making a broader point about "cycling at the speed limit".


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Wish I could find a pic of that customised bike that's as wide as a car


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, I've agreed that in this case. I thought you were making a broader point about "cycling at the speed limit".


Depends on the situation. I wouldn't hold the centre lane on an emptyish road just because I'm doing 30 but I would think it entitles me to not ride in the gutter. And I've had plenty of angry drivers behind me but I've only ever had one deliberately drive into me once (a black cab, at traffic lights, because I took 2 seconds to get started).


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 22, 2015)

Just throwing this one into the discussion...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&v=TlKlduaWRiY&x-yt-cl=84411374


This dude was pushing his luck a bit mind.




Really don't miss riding my bike around that there London. Had a pram pushed out in front of me in Bethnal Green Rd once from behind the number 8 bus. Did a full somersault and had some fuckin blert on the bus screaming it was my fault for not looking where I was going The poor mother was horrified when I gave her nipper a cuddle and said "Good job it wasn't a nasty motorbike or a hackney cab" 

It's fucking horrible cycling on the road in the UK. No respect and the aggression is getting worse on both sides


----------



## coley (Jan 22, 2015)

friedaweed said:


> Just throwing this one into the discussion...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421828030&v=TlKlduaWRiY&x-yt-cl=84411374
> 
> ...




No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Wish I could find a pic of that customised bike that's as wide as a car



Do you mean this? (from a protest in Latvia designed to show how much more space cyclists would take up if they weren't cycling, as they'd be using cars instead).


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?


The second one shows what a total arse the cycle lane system is cos there's a bus parked in it whilst he's trying to overtake the coach on the outside. I wouldn't get in a gap that small with a coach though. No honestly I actually wouldn't get in a gap that small


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?


Cyclists aren't obliged to use the cycle lane.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?



I only watched the first 20 or 30 seconds of that, until it does the reply (dunno why there's 4 minutes, tell me if I should watch on).
There's only one cyclist in the bit I watched.
He is fucking insane overtaking the coach, my god! This is the same kind of thing as I moan about with drivers - what was the decision making process behind that one? Presumably time saving, which really, how much time would you save? Fuck all, and probably none given traffic lights. Even if there was enough space to overtake (and there isn't, I'd bet proper money he's in the blind spot of the coach at that distance), I wouldn't do it and would instruct trainees not to - best wording of this according to the national standards would be "Never filter past large vehicles on the left, only filter past on the right if you are certain traffic won't start moving until you are clear of the front blind spot on the vehicle". I would take that to mean that you shouldn't overtake a moving large vehicle, unless you are certain they are about to stop and then make sure you are away from them and not in blind spots in case they have signalled incorrectly/change their mind.

He definitely shouldn't use the cycle lane there though, with the bus stops up ahead and the coach there - and that the coach stopped shortly afterwards, maybe a coach stop there? So cyclist may have believed the coach would be pulling over - even the likelyhood of it would justify remaining in primary position behind the coach, so you could filter past when it does.
Nice of the motorcyclist filming to check the cyclist was ok.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?



He doesn't use the cycle lane because he sees that there's a red bus blocking it up ahead. So he should realise that the coach is going to move out to pass the bus and not not try to squeeze down the side. The coach driver should've checked before moving out.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> I only watched the first 20 or 30 seconds of that, until it does the reply (dunno why there's 4 minutes, tell me if I should watch on).
> There's only one cyclist in the bit I watched.
> He is fucking insane overtaking the coach, my god! This is the same kind of thing as I moan about with drivers - what was the decision making process behind that one? Presumably time saving, which really, how much time would you save? Fuck all, and probably none given traffic lights. Even if there was enough space to overtake (and there isn't, I'd bet proper money he's in the blind spot of the coach at that distance), I wouldn't do it and would instruct trainees not to - best wording of this according to the national standards would be "Never filter past large vehicles on the left, only filter past on the right if you are certain traffic won't start moving until you are clear of the front blind spot on the vehicle". I would take that to mean that you shouldn't overtake a moving large vehicle, unless you are certain they are about to stop and then make sure you are away from them and not in blind spots in case they have signalled incorrectly/change their mind.
> 
> ...


It was an insane move especially as he's on an uphill gradient at that point and unlikely to be able to accelerate much.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Do you mean this? (from a protest in Latvia designed to show how much more space cyclists would take up if they weren't cycling, as they'd be using cars instead).


 
Are they expected to stop at red lights when they've got those things on?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> (dunno why there's 4 minutes, tell me if I should watch on).



No, just the camera bloke being a bit of a knob. And parking on a red route.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 22, 2015)

Some buses up here will indicate as they pull out rather than check properly (M-S-M) and signal *before* manoeuvring.  It's always a bit of a gamble passing them so I'll always check that I have somewhere to go if they do move off.  You never know if the driver's sat there reading the paper or about to swing into your path.  One problem can be that they pull off fairly quickly, and then you have following traffic to your left too and difficulty moving back into the traffic flow.  Most of the time you'll outrun them if you already have a bit of momentum, but not always.  

Like any other road user you have seconds to make these decisions, planning ahead is one of those things you pick up, but novice cyclists take a while to develop the instinct.  Experienced riders (and drivers) will fuck up too, it's human nature, and not always about selfishness or carelessness, just circumstances unfolding in a way you might not have anticipated.  Sometimes you're riding a bit on autopilot and decisions are automatic - if buses follow predictable routes on a route you cycle every day you might never even consider one turning a different way at a certain junction, then suddenly one does and you don't know where you are.  Last year I overtook one at a junction where buses always turn left as straight on is a dead-end with a cycle cut through only to find it carrying straight on and me stuck halfway along it unable to get past and facing oncoming traffic.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for not using the cycle lane?



Clearly you don't cycle if you presume that cycle lanes are useful!

I should probably add to that the cycle lanes are rarely useful to the cyclist.  Perhaps they are useful to the planner who wants to show they are doing their bit for cyclists, or useful for the driver who wants to get rid of cyclists 'out of their way', or useful for the aggressive motorist who's looking for an excuse to run a cyclist of the road.  However in my experience they are rarely designed with cyclists in mind.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 22, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Some buses up here will indicate as they pull out rather than check properly



Tbh that's probably my one single driving source of irk. I get it's tough to find the space for a bus to pull out, though too many move first and signal after. You can't assume anything when passing a parked bus IMO.


----------



## Boycey (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> OU knows this road. I would always go with that knowledge rather than making my own judgement based on a YT vid. Safety first and staying in the RH lane for that short distance is almost certainly safer than changing lanes twice.



I worked as a bicycle courier for a photographic supply company based just off the turning he's getting in lane for. I spent 6 months negotiating that junction 60+ times a day. There was more than adequate time to pull left 2m to allow traffic to pass before retaking the lane to be in an appropriate position to turn onto kennington road. It's worth noting the distance to the junction is cut from the video...

Riding like this and whinging about being undertaken is just stupid.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Nah, best to stay in lane i reckon. Too risky to cross a lane again esp when there's a load of impatient drivers behind you.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nah, best to stay in lane i reckon. Too risky to cross a lane again esp when there's a load of impatient drivers behind you.


What's the junction? It's a bit south of the river for me.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nah, best to stay in lane i reckon. Too risky to cross a lane again esp when there's a load of impatient drivers behind you.



Assuming we're talking about the policecar undertaking, I'd agree with that. The cyclist is making decent enough time along the road so delay to traffic behind is minimal.  Swapping lanes is where the risk lies in this situation, imo, so doing so twice more than necessary seems needlessly risky.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think that's right.



I remembered to ask 

As well as doing cycling training, we also do cycle safety awareness driver training for LGV* / PCV drivers. We've been told by those drivers that when they do their Class I, II or PCV licence training they are told that it is not legal to change lanes in a zig-zag area. It's not in the highway code though, so may only apply to large vehicles or may be best practice dressed up as legal obligation.

*LGV = Large Goods Vehicle. The nomenclature has changed from LGV = light goods vehicle and HGV = heavy goods vehicle to just LGV for both and I'm trying to get into the habit of using it correctly for work, but I know it's confusing for a lot of people who are used to the old acronyms/terms. PCV = people carrying vehicle ie: busses. 
LGV and PCV drivers are required to do 37.5hrs of CPD courses over a 5 year period (one day per year average), and the cycle safety awareness course (officially called Safer Urban Driving) is one of their options. Every contractor who works on crossrail is required by TfL to send all their drivers on a Safer Urban Driving course, and funds the courses we run.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> What's the junction? It's a bit south of the river for me.


It's Westminster Bridge Road and the right turn is onto Kennington Road. Just opposite Lambeth North tube.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> No expert,but surely both cyclists were at fault? The first one just for being an arse, the second one for *not using the cycle lane*?



I'm reminded here of that vid of the cyclist in New York who got fined for leaving a(n advisory) cycle lane to pass a parked car.  Are we really expected to ride into the back of stationary vehicles now?  Or do we stop and wait for the obstruction to move, regardless of how long that takes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> I remembered to ask
> 
> As well as doing cycling training, we also do cycle safety awareness driver training for LGV* / PCV drivers. We've been told by those drivers that when they do their Class I, II or PCV licence training they are told that it is not legal to change lanes in a zig-zag area. It's not in the highway code though, so may only apply to large vehicles or may be best practice dressed up as legal obligation.
> 
> ...



Cheers. Saved me some nerding around on the internet tonight.


----------



## coley (Jan 22, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Clearly you don't cycle if you presume that cycle lanes are useful!


I don't, and never will going off the contents of this thread, bliddy suicidal.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> I don't, and never will going off the contents of this thread, bliddy suicidal.



It's not suicidal if you cycle in the right position, plan your route well, are assertive and not a stupid fucker. Get some training, most council's offer it to adults, many for free.
We need dutch/danish segregated style infrastructure before I'd describe it as safe though.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 22, 2015)

I am clumsy and insecure on a bike and can't imagine how I would ever acquire the experience necessary to ride on the roads with any degree of consistent safety.  It's just never going to happen.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I am clumsy and insecure on a bike and can't imagine how I would ever acquire the experience necessary to ride on the roads with any degree of consistent safety.  It's just never going to happen.



Practice in a park or on a greenway/quietway, then ride around quiet residential roads once you can take a hand off the handlebar without wobbling/feeling insecure. 
Really though, this is exactly why we need proper segregated infrastructure, then you'd have a safe space to be clumsy in 

Thing is, where you live, country lanes and the like right? These are very, very different to riding in a town/city, a lot more dangerous, not just because of increased response times from emergency services, but cos you're more likely to be left for ages after a hit and run (cos no-one else is around), and have narrower roads with less visibility etc. I don't like riding on country roads.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 22, 2015)

It's about controlling other traffic to keep yourself safe.  With decent segregated infrastructure you would for the most part need nothing to do with other traffic.  In the absence of this, a bit of assertiveness is sometimes required.  Getting up people's noses a bit at least makes them notice you are there.  It's nothing personal.


----------



## Onket (Jan 22, 2015)

I'm not sure I agree with wholesale segregation.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2015)

Onket said:


> I'm not sure I agree with wholesale segregation.


 
Def more segregation needed generally, I reckon (the big busy trunk routes etc.), though shared spaces in certain places like residential areas are appropriate imo and work well in some other countries.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Onket said:


> I'm not sure I agree with wholesale segregation.


Cyclists get killed by big lorries mostly. Cyclists and big lorries definitely need to be kept apart.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 22, 2015)

Trunk roads often aren't the problem as drivers have plenty of room to overtake and if they're newish roads then sight lines are pretty good.  I like to peg it a bit on my commute, moving with the traffic, but would be happy with some of the Dutch style stuff through the city centre because it keeps you out of a lot of danger and if done properly doesn't really slow you down.  The problem with the British implementation is that they expect you to wind about pressing buttons on crossings or weaving around pedestrians on shared pavements (just to keep you out of the way of cars).  I've no time for that bullshit.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 22, 2015)

Yeah, there are no residential roads like you describe at all where I live. I'd have to drive a bike into a town.

I could ride a mountain bike on bridle ways and bike paths all I wanted, mind.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

kabbes said:


> I am clumsy and insecure on a bike and can't imagine how I would ever acquire the experience necessary to ride on the roads with any degree of consistent safety.  It's just never going to happen.



Actually. You're white, male, middle class, above average earning, in Surrey?
In which case, what you need to do is buy a £2k road bike and lycra, then join your local cycling club. You'll be in the tour de france next year


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Trunk roads often aren't the problem as drivers have plenty of room to overtake and if they're newish roads then sight lines are pretty good.  I like to peg it a bit on my commute, moving with the traffic, but would be happy with some of the Dutch style stuff through the city centre because it keeps you out of a lot of danger and if done properly doesn't really slow you down.  The problem with the British implementation is that they expect you to wind about pressing buttons on crossings or weaving around pedestrians on shared pavements (just to keep you out of the way of cars).  I've no time for that bullshit.



imo Is ok if you can go 20mph+. If you're like me and it's 8-12mph you want to avoid those 30mph trunk roads that are actually 40mph. Drivers don't give you the space, HGVs etc. fucking terrifying, you can't move with the traffic because they are going 3-4 times as fast as you can. It's those roads than need segregation  (in Birmingham anyway) because they are all the direct routes people will commute from suburbs to city centre on - otherwise you are going round the houses on residential roads/greenways and it ends up taking as much or more time than driving.
But I'm looking at it from a mass cycling perspective here, more than a safety perspective.

edit: none of the roads I'm thinking of are newish roads though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 22, 2015)

Do all the cyclists in the Netherlands pootle along slowly in their segregated lanes? Or are there some fast lanes available? That's my only reservation about segregated infrastructure.
That and the fact that I like cycling in traffic.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Do all the cyclists in the Netherlands pootke along slowly in their segregated lanes? Or are there some fast lanes available? That's my only reservation about segregated infrastructure.
> That and the fact that I like cycling in traffic.


Last time I was in Holland my mum was almost run over by a big dutch fellow hurtling along who shouted 'do you want to die' at her.


----------



## coley (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> It's not suicidal if you cycle in the right position, plan your route well, are assertive and not a stupid fucker. Get some training, most council's offer it to adults, many for free.
> We need dutch/danish segregated style infrastructure before I'd describe it as safe though.


Sorry,but no amount of training is going to protect you from the carelessness or stupidity of some motorists.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, there are no residential roads like you describe at all where I live. I'd have to drive a bike into a town.
> 
> I could ride a mountain bike on bridle ways and bike paths all I wanted, mind.



Yeah, this makes it difficult. If you were really keen and wanted to start cycling to your station for the inevitable train delays, then I'd say to get out on a mountain bike or hybrid on those trails and ride around until you feel stable and secure in that environment, in terms of control/handling of the bike.

Then find a local instructor, through your council or a local cycling club, who could take you for some lessons on country roads around you. I wouldn't like to give advice on riding that kind of road because I don't do it myself, where we have people coming to us who will use those kinds of roads (which isn't very often due to the nature of our funding), I always pair them up with someone who regularly rides in the country and they get a level 3 lesson which is just about riding on country roads. We also do journey accompaniment which sees an instructor riding with them on their specific journey, which is hugely useful for confidence if nothing else.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2015)

I get scared _walking_ on country lanes quite frankly, fuck cycling on them.


----------



## Onket (Jan 22, 2015)

maomao said:


> Cyclists get killed by big lorries mostly. Cyclists and big lorries definitely need to be kept apart.


Big lorries aren't road safe and laws need to be passed about them, rather than things being done to try to ensure the death traps  just carry on as they are.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> Sorry,but no amount of training is going to protect you from the carelessness or stupidity of some motorists.



Won't protect you from all of it, but does protect you from some of it, particularly the distracted type moments. Keeping traffic behind you for instance, makes it very difficult for a driver to collide with you. Using primary past side roads makes you more visible and gives a moment more time if someone doesn't look (properly) when entering the road. Using primary when passing parked cars removes any possibility of someone opening a car door on you.

Nothing will protect anyone from a motorist who is truly determined to do something stupid, but training will help prevent lots of collisions.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 22, 2015)

You're right, but from where I am that all seems like a terribly uphill struggle.  Quite literally uphill, in fact -- between me and the station is a 6 mile hill that falls 300m.  After a 90 minute commute, the idea of riding up that in the dark and wet with no streetlights... Well, let's just say it doesn't appeal.  Did I mention that it is also narrow, windy and 60mph? Yeah, it's narrow, windy and 60mph.  Not for a novice!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Do all the cyclists in the Netherlands pootle along slowly in their segregated lanes? Or are there some fast lanes available? That's my only reservation about segregated infrastructure.
> That and the fact that I like cycling in traffic.



Make the lanes wide enough for two cyclists, so a fast cyclist can overtake a slow one. Obviously as the number of cyclists builds up, you will get congestion, as they do in NL/Copenhagen, though not on the scale of our motoring congestion. 
I don't know though, not cycled in NL/Denmark and this wasn't a question I asked my Danish cousins.


----------



## coley (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Won't protect you from all of it, but does protect you from some of it, particularly the distracted type moments. Keeping traffic behind you for instance, makes it very difficult for a driver to collide with you. Using primary past side roads makes you more visible and gives a moment more time if someone doesn't look (properly) when entering the road. Using primary when passing parked cars removes any possibility of someone opening a car door on you.
> 
> Nothing will protect anyone from a motorist who is truly determined to do something stupid, but training will help prevent lots of collisions.


I live in rural Northumberland and see stupidity from motorists on a daily basis, what it must be like in that there lunneren I dread to think!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

coley said:


> I live in rural Northumberland and see stupidity from motorists on a daily basis, what it must be like in that there lunneren I dread to think!



Rural is very, very, very different to city/town cycling - more or less everything I say should be seen in the context of riding around a city/town, not rural roads. They are very different and need to be treated differently. The risks and hazards are different, so the way you deal with them is different and it's not something I have experience with.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You're right, but from where I am that all seems like a terribly uphill struggle.  Quite literally uphill, in fact -- between me and the station is a 6 mile hill that falls 300m.  After a 90 minute commute, the idea of riding up that in the dark and wet with no streetlights... Well, let's just say it doesn't appeal.  Did I mention that it is also narrow, windy and 60mph? Yeah, it's narrow, windy and 60mph.  Not for a novice!



Yeah. fuck that. I wouldn't ride that. 60mph country lanes, christ no. Maybe if I could do 25-30mph. Maybe. but probably not.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Do all the cyclists in the Netherlands pootle along slowly in their segregated lanes? Or are there some fast lanes available? That's my only reservation about segregated infrastructure.
> That and the fact that I like cycling in traffic.



You still get club cyclists in Holland.  As they want to go fast they'll select appropriate routes.  It's not a problem if you want to go fast, however going through a busy city you'll go as fast as the conditions allow.

Outside of built areas / rush hour there's plenty of opportunities safely go flat out.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 22, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Rural is very, very, very different to city/town cycling - more or less everything I say should be seen in the context of riding around a city/town, not rural roads. They are very different and need to be treated differently. The risks and hazards are different, so the way you deal with them is different and it's not something I have experience with.



At least in urban areas, motorists a) mostly keep to speed limits and b) are used to encountering cyclists and c) are on wider roads

I live in the country and motorists a) treat speed limits as a bit of a guideline (at best) b) consider the occasional cyclists they come across as wierdo's taking their life in their hands and c) are often on narrow, winding, badly surfaced roads.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 23, 2015)

maomao said:


> Last time I was in Holland my mum was almost run over by a big dutch fellow hurtling along who shouted 'do you want to die' at her.



Which begs the question, how did he know she was English?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Do all the cyclists in the Netherlands pootle along slowly in their segregated lanes? Or are there some fast lanes available? That's my only reservation about segregated infrastructure.
> That and the fact that I like cycling in traffic.


 
Do you lycra?


----------



## maomao (Jan 23, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Which begs the question, how did he know she was English?


She'd fucking thump you if you called her English, she's Scottish. Touristy part of town, doddery old lady crossing the road looking the wrong way, reasonable assumption and spot on. He didn't do it in Chinese for my in-laws who were there too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> Do you lycra?


Lycra is not a verb.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Lycra is not a verb.


 
OMG - I'm getting the feeling you do.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 23, 2015)

maomao said:


> She'd fucking thump you if you called her English, she's Scottish.



I did actually put "British" first but then edited it to English, just in case Draigo is still watching. 



> Touristy part of town, doddery old lady crossing the road looking the wrong way, reasonable assumption and spot on. He didn't do it in Chinese for my in-laws who were there too.



It's happened to me a few times in other countries and I don't look typically British. I think a lot of Northern Europeans default to English when chastising or insulting obvious tourists as it probably gives the best chance of successful comprehension.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> OMG - I'm getting the feeling you do.


Nylon shorts, polyester jacket, cotton t-shirt.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I did actually put "British" first but then edited it to English, just in case Draigo is still watching.


 
You are a very naughty boy.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nylon shorts, polyester jacket, cotton t-shirt.


 
All very kosher.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> Big lorries aren't road safe and laws need to be passed about them, rather than things being done to try to ensure the death traps  just carry on as they are.



They shouldn't be driving into the centre of towns and cities. There's got to be a better system for that.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> Big lorries aren't road safe and laws need to be passed about them, rather than things being done to try to ensure the death traps  just carry on as they are.


What laws would you propose?

They already operate on some fairly strict laws on training, drivers hours, rest breaks etc. and the country would grind to a halt without them.

This might come across as victim blaming, but afaik most of the accidents involve lorries turning left, and IMO no cyclist should ever put themselves to the left of an artic at traffic lights / a junction as there is a blind spot directly below the mirrors, and the trailor on an artic does cut in significantly to the left as it turns so will be likely to hit any cyclist that's sat in that blind spot at the lights. I guess the same would apply to any artic drivers who pull up at a junction that already has a cyclist waiting at it.

I'd like to see both more action to reduce blind spots, but also more action to raise awareness among cyclists about the danger posed, and particularly the danger posed by assuming that because there's a cycle land up the left at a juntion leading to a box at the front of the traffic, that they should always just ride up that cycle lane to the box even when there's a massive great big artic at the front of the lights in the left hand lane, and you'd be fucked if the lights changed while you were still coming up their inside and in their blind spot if the truck then turned left.

So I'd think it'd be a good idea for something like compulsory notices on the back left of all artics along the lines of the 'please let this buss pull out' ones on buses, but with 'Danger, cyclist do not pass on the left at junctions, xxx cyclists a year killed by artics each year'.

Also training around the idea that if the lorry appears to be pulling out to the right, this is actually an indication that it's about to swing round and turn left, so don't go cycling into that gap they've just created to swing their rear end into.

Additional training for truck drivers to pull in behind cycists if they see them already at a junction they're approaching would also be a very good idea, as would any additional mirrors to reduce the blind spots, but they're not going to stop it happening if a cyclists misinterprets the drivers actions when they swing out to the right prior to turning sharply left, resulting in the cyclist moving off and putting themselves directly into the path of the main body of the truck and rear wheels.

Some stuff here on this, and from Rospa


> When turning left, a lorry will often pull out to the right first. This creates a wide gap on the left side between the vehicle and the kerb, which many cyclists think is safe to ride into. But in fact this is a very dangerous place to be
> As the lorry begins to turn, it will swing back to the left very close to the kerb. The gap between the kerb and the lorry will disappear in an instant.
> If a lorry in front of you is waiting in a queue of stationary traffic (particularly at the approach to any junction), do not undertake it. Hang back behind the vehicle and let it move off first.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2015)

Not really on topic but ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833



> A lawyer is taking City of Edinburgh Council to court on behalf of 60 clients who claim they have fallen off their bikes due to tram tracks.
> 
> Stewart White, of Thompsons Solicitors Scotland, said the council was responsible for injuries his clients had sustained while riding.
> 
> ...



best bit though is a quote from Edinburgh's transport convener.



> With the launch of Edinburgh Trams, our 'careful now' campaign successfully targeted other road users to raise awareness of the new service and advise on how best to take precautions when travelling nearby.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

Hopefully in a few years, improvement in battery technology will make trams obsolete


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> They shouldn't be driving into the centre of towns and cities. There's got to be a better system for that.


This^

They are totally unsuitable and shouldn't be on those roads. Perhaps restrict them to motorways and dual carriageways.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2015)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm not sure how it is practical to ban lorries from cities. Perhaps at certain times. But stuff needs to get got from one place to another.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure how it is practical to ban lorries from cities. Perhaps at certain times. But stuff needs to get got from one place to another.



There are 'ideal' systems, but all the ways of having proper separation between cyclists and dangerous HGVs involve big infrastructural changes that would take decades afaik.  I'd personally like to see a lot more freight moving by rail but hey ho...


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> This^
> 
> They are totally unsuitable and shouldn't be on those roads. Perhaps restrict them to motorways and dual carriageways.



Are you for real? Are you being serious?


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 24, 2015)

8ball said:


> There are 'ideal' systems, but all the ways of having proper separation between cyclists and dangerous HGVs involve big infrastructural changes that would take decades afaik.  I'd personally like to see a lot more freight moving by rail but hey ho...



Even with more freight on the railways, we'd still need lorries all over the place. Didn't a cement mixer lorry kill a cyclist in the city a few years back, prompting the victims mother to work with the company to install extra mirrors on their lorries?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Even with more freight on the railways, we'd still need lorries all over the place. Didn't a cement mixer lorry kill a cyclist in the city a few years back, prompting the victims mother to work with the company to install extra mirrors on their lorries?



One for its own thread in the transport forum, really, but with a significantly different distribution system I think we could reduce the number of the really big lorries in certain areas (still a good few vans and LGVs about, I would think).

I think the really big vehicles should be separated from cyclists anyway, same as we do with the faster roads.
 I agree with what you say about there being some possible partial fixes that can help matters, though.


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> Hopefully in a few years, improvement in battery technology will make trams obsolete


And just how much did their new tram system cost?


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2015)

8ball said:


> One for its own thread in the transport forum, really, but with a significantly different distribution system I think we could reduce the number of the really big lorries in certain areas



No money to do it, so it'll never happen - maybe one day when Amazon fill the air with drones and people start being killed by falling DVDs.


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

free spirit said:


> What laws would you propose?
> 
> They already operate on some fairly strict laws on training, drivers hours, rest breaks etc. and the country would grind to a halt without them.
> 
> ...



I have never cycled in a big city but even with my limited experience I wouldn't cycle into a lorries blind side so why do experienced cyclists do it?


----------



## bemused (Jan 24, 2015)

coley said:


> And just how much did their new tram system cost?



The Croydon tram is brilliant.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

coley said:


> I have never cycled in a big city but even with my limited experience I wouldn't cycle into a lorries blind side so why do experienced cyclists do it?


as that article indicates, part of the problem could well be the cycle lanes themselves going up the inside to the ASL area, and even the ASL itself if the cyclist is on the very left side of it they can be pretty much invisible to the driver unless they have a mirror at the front middle that allows them to view the area directly in front of the cab, but I don't think this is a legal requirement.


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> The Croydon tram is brilliant.


Aye but this is the future
http://chargedevs.com/newswire/volv...egins-operation-on-hamburgs-innovation-route/
gentlegreen 
Sorry for the slight derail.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> This^
> 
> They are totally unsuitable and shouldn't be on those roads. Perhaps restrict them to motorways and dual carriageways.


a 44 tonner can carry the same load as around 8-9 x 7.5 tonners


----------



## Tankus (Jan 24, 2015)

Another nail in the coffin for retail in the high street if even considered ..


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

I have a medium size supermarket near me which we all depend on - me for over 30 years - and today I was asked to sign a petition to have the relatively small number of lorries to have to reverse onto the main road rather than as they do now, continue on down the side road.
I suspect the petitioners are retirees who like to sit in their front rooms all day - apart presumably during the rush hour when the road becomes something of a rat run.


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

The value of human life vs the value of convenience shopping


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Are you for real? Are you being serious?


Of course I am. Why do you ask? Human life worthless to you?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

When I was crippled with sciatica at the start of the year, I was particularly glad for "convenience shopping". I don't want to run a car and I can only carry so much of my groceries on a pushbike.


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

Yes, I suppose the comparison was a bit poor.

It's the old 'greed kills' situation, isn't it. Businesses value human life as less valuable than making a larger profit.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

All the alternatives are worse - in terms of the planet and the safety of people.


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

All of them?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

reversing big lorries onto a main road - potentially lethal
Fleet of small electric vans - maybe even more dangerous overall given the large lorries would need to have someone in HIVIZ guiding them.


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> reversing big lorries onto a main road - potentially lethal
> Fleet of small electric vans - maybe even more dangerous overall given the large lorries would need to have someone in HIVIZ guiding them.


Well, that's certainly covered all of the alternatives.


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> When I was crippled with sciatica at the start of the year, I was particularly glad for "convenience shopping". I don't want to run a car and I can only carry so much of my groceries on a pushbike.


Hope this was what delivered your shopping

https://www.electricbike.com/ups-using-e-trikes-for-delivery-in-germany/


----------



## coley (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> All of them?


https://www.electricbike.com/ups-using-e-trikes-for-delivery-in-germany/


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 24, 2015)

Maybe drones are the way forward with regards to groceries


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> Well, that's certainly covered all of the alternatives.


flatten everything and start again - laying out homes, workplaces and feeding stations optimally ?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

coley said:


> I have never cycled in a big city but even with my limited experience I wouldn't cycle into a lorries blind side so why do experienced cyclists do it?


Some cyclists, more likely be Inexperienced cyclists than experienced imo, do it because:

That's where cycle lanes are, and people also wrongly think they have to use cycle lanes where they exist and think they should be in the same place on the road where there aren't cycle lanes.

Cycling proficiency (now scrapped) taught cyclists to always filter on the left.

People who know how to ride a bike think they won't benefit from training so don't get trained / did cycling proficiency at school and don't know advice/rules have changed.

Are somehow unaware that lgvs move right to turn left, and how big their blind spots are. I dunno how people don't know this but they don't.

Then there's those who know all this and just think they'll get past the lorry before it moves off  plenty of cyclists are killed by lorries turning left on to them too though, it's a two way thing, and needs to be resolved by infrastructure directing cyclists and lgvs to not use the same space at the same time, like we direct pedestrians and lgvs to not use the same space at the same time.

Whilst we do that, cyclist and driver training/info campaign, stickers on lgvs directing cyclists to pass on the right only and design changes to lorries - bars along the side to stop people getting pulled under, cameras rather than mirrors, more glass on cabs to reduce blind spots - will improve the situation.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

free spirit said:


> as that article indicates, part of the problem could well be the cycle lanes themselves going up the inside to the ASL area, and even the ASL itself if the cyclist is on the very left side of it they can be pretty much invisible to the driver unless they have a mirror at the front middle that allows them to view the area directly in front of the cab, but I don't think this is a legal requirement.


ASLs most stupid thing is they put you in the blind spot at the front of the cab, wherever you are in it. I don't use one of an lgv is at the front unless I can go further forward from the asl to move out of the blind spot


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> All of them?


16 x 3.5 tonne van vs 8 x 7.5 tonne trucks vs 1 x 44 tonne artic

roughly.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> bars along the side to stop people getting pulled under.


can't see how that could work, they'd need to be too far off teh ground to prevent the artics grounding themselves on bridges, speed humps etc


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

free spirit said:


> can't see how that could work, they'd need to be too far off teh ground to prevent the artics grounding themselves on bridges, speed humps etc



Well they exist and maybe are a legal requirement in London now (first image is from a Times article) so obviously they do work. On my phone do hopefully these image links will work


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> flatten everything and start again - laying out homes, workplaces and feeding stations optimally ?


That'd have to be done to put segregated cycle lanes into some places!


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Well they exist and maybe are a legal requirement in London now (first image is from a Times article) so obviously they do work. On my phone do hopefully these image links will work


ah ok, sorry I get you, there's more clearance under those side bits than I was thinking you meant, but yes I can see how they'd help a cyclist to stay upright rather than getting knowcked over above their centre of balance and dragged under the wheels.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 24, 2015)

free spirit said:


> ah ok, sorry I get you, there's more clearance under those side bits than I was thinking you meant, but yes I can see how they'd help a cyclist to stay upright rather than getting knowcked over above their centre of balance and dragged under the wheels.


I think it's more that they'll get pushed away from the truck/wheels, rather than them stay upright.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> I think it's more that they'll get pushed away from the truck/wheels, rather than them stay upright.


well yeah, but they could still fit underneath the side pieces if flat down on the ground, so it's got to be at least partly about them pushing the whole of the bike / cyclist above and below the centre of gravity so they move the entire body and bike, as opposed to just pushing them over at shoulder height.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 24, 2015)

Onket said:


> Of course I am. Why do you ask? Human life worthless to you?



You're right, we should ban ALL motor vehicles - that way no one would die...and anyone who doesn't agree, obviously doesn't value human life!


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 24, 2015)

bemused said:


> No money to do it, so it'll never happen - maybe one day when Amazon fill the air with drones and people start being killed by falling DVDs.



Do people still buy DVDs then?


----------



## Onket (Jan 24, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> You're right, we should ban ALL motor vehicles - that way no one would die...and anyone who doesn't agree, obviously doesn't value human life!


*slow clap*


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

Onket said:


> Well, that's certainly covered all of the alternatives.


You're enjoying this thread aren't you?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 25, 2015)

I'd like to dedicate this video to the first 30 pages.


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> flatten everything and start again - laying out homes, workplaces and feeding stations optimally ?


Or just flatten cyclists? Sorry, grabbing me coat


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2015)

Its great reading threads like this where everyone works themselves up into a frenzy of road-righteous highway code spouting bullshit. 

I ride a knackered old pink n blue Raleigh that I have called sharon. It cost me 30 notes from a second hand shop. It's got shit brakes and the chain frequently locks into bastard hard gear unless you get off and punch the chain.

If someone disrespects me on the road I will get off my bike and go to Have Words. If they are able to escape my wrath by the miracle of a combustion engine then I will not Have Words because there is no one there anymore. You suck that one up.

My nieghbours house got jacked over christmas and they turned over my shed while they were at it Astonishingly they left sharon there. It's almost like the thing isn't worth stealing


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 25, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> My nieghbours house got jacked over christmas and they turned over my shed while they were at it Astonishingly they left sharon there. It's almost like the thing isn't worth stealing



I'm quite impressed, sometimes they just still shit for the fun.

Only time I summoned the courage to buy a bike in London I purposely picked the cheapest, £80 one I could find in Halfords.

2 days later they nicked the front wheel, cue another chain and a new wheel (£60)

Next day they nicked the saddle (£25 + £10  for a chain)

Then maybe 3 weeks later I come downstairs to find the inch thick bike lock sawed through and a forlorn looking front wheel still stuck to the fence.

After that, well I said fuck it and just didn't bother. The wheel is probably still there for all I know, might go and check one day as I've long since had to leave the heady wonders of Zone 2.


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Do people still buy DVDs then?



I assume so, do places outside London have the Internet?


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 25, 2015)

A lot of cyclist deaths in London have been construction vehicles, eight-wheeled tippers, cement lorries and skip wagons. It's not just very long 38 ton artics that are the danger, these shorter wheelbase wagons are if anything more notorious. Maybe people who wouldn't ride up a larger wagon think they will get past, or maybe they're less likely to have side bars - often the case with tippers as the operators argue the lower ground clearance is a problem on construction or landfill sites.  Newer safer designs (as seen on a lot of domestic bin wagons) have much lower cabs which give much better visibility.

More often than not it's junction design - there have been two deaths at Farringdon on a junction that has much sharper edges than would be designed these days, meaning longer vehicles will cut in more than expected. Solutions suggested include banning left turns for HGVs in a couple of directions, which means a short detour, but isn't going to bring the wheels of industry grinding to a halt. Practical small things like this can help, but in a lot of cases total redesign is needed, which is being looked at in London. Elsewhere (at least in Leeds) we're still being given get-off-and-push options on multi-million pound cycling schemes, a long way to go.


----------



## bemused (Jan 25, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> More often than not it's junction design [..]



I think also some of the problem is that in central London the junctions with lights have become a a free for all scrum. Commercial vehicles, cars, motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles all jostle for space and position. It isn't surprising that many people are hurt in that chaos.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Jan 25, 2015)

bemused said:


> I assume so, do places outside London have the Internet?



Evidently...


----------



## coley (Jan 25, 2015)

Spirit Of Slade said:


> Evidently...


Aye but it's a sod when the steam pressure drops and it starts buffering!


----------

