UKH

A caution for this....?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Hardonicus 16 Sep 2021
 subtle 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

It does seem a rather odd, and lenient, decision - however there's not a lot to go on from the BBC article

7
In reply to Hardonicus:

Cyclists lives don't matter, haven't you noticed?

13
In reply to subtle:

I think the cyclist's actions were contributory and dangerous.  You don't cycle up to a moving car, grab onto the mirror and have an altercation with the driver while moving.  That's idiotic beyond belief and utterly indefensible, however bad the actions of the driver were.  The correct thing to do is to send the helmet camera footage of the alleged dangerous overtake to the Police* and not act like a vigilante which was clearly never going to do anything other than provoke an argument or fight.

I don't know if there's a suitable offence to charge the cyclist with, but if he were on a motorcycle or e-scooter a dangerous driving charge would clearly apply.

* Which they do act on.  A friend (yes, a friend, not me) was actually banned for a year and made to retake his test on strength of dashcam evidence of him doing a dangerous overtake which very nearly caused a serious accident.

Post edited at 13:36
9
 supersteve 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I used to ride with a guy who used to argue, shout and swear at almost every car that passed, because they were too close, too fast, on a bend, etc. He was always so stressed. Just let the car pass, ignore the hoot and enjoy your ride. Then this won't happen....

4
 subtle 16 Sep 2021
In reply to supersteve:

> I used to ride with a guy who used to argue, shout and swear at almost every car that passed, because they were too close, too fast, on a bend, etc. He was always so stressed. Just let the car pass, ignore the hoot and enjoy your ride. Then this won't happen....

I stopped riding with a guy due to this.

I recently was witnesss to an incident, spoke to the two cylcists concerned, they later got in touch with the police who then phoned me as a witness (I had given the cyclists my nr), turn out the driver was fined so yes, the police do (sometimes) act upon cyclists camera footage

 Yanis Nayu 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

They do act on… occasionally. The two incidents I’ve been involved in, one was reported by me and one by someone else and both simply generated a automated response. Police are a waste of space. 

15
 PaulJepson 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Presumably the defence was ".......come on, your honour, you know you would"

There isn't an awful amount of sympathy for the lycra-clad and I'm sure the cyclists actions were deemed some sort of provocation. 

I had a few conversations with drivers I caught up with at traffic lights when I was cycling to work on the reg. They varied in response from "oh I'm so sorry" to "YOU DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!"

I would agree that, just like driving, channelling my inner zen in those situations left me feeling a lot better than getting angry about it. Nowadays I think about the angry, sweaty gammon behind the wheel and just appreciate that they aren't worth my energy. 

4
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> They do act on… occasionally. The two incidents I’ve been involved in, one was reported by me and one by someone else and both simply generated a automated response. Police are a waste of space. 

Either way, grabbing a moving vehicle from another is completely unacceptable in any circumstances, and could easily have caused a serious accident (indeed, did cause his other half to fall, I believe).

It's astonishing that the cyclist had the gall to go to the Beeb and describe his actions as if he was innocent.  Regardless of what the driver then did in response (I guess coasting to a stop would be the safest way to respond, but they might quite reasonably have feared for their personal safety) it was clearly contributory.

And I say that as a cyclist.  By all means wave your fist and stick up two fingers (I've done that many times), but remonstrating is pointless, and grabbing a moving vehicle to do it is just idiotic.  What the cyclist did is lost his rag, and all he's managed to achieve is make sure that anyone on the BBC website thinks his actions were grossly foolish and put himself and his other half in serious danger because he wasn't able to control the "red mist".

Post edited at 14:38
5
In reply to PaulJepson:

> I had a few conversations with drivers I caught up with at traffic lights when I was cycling to work on the reg. They varied in response from "oh I'm so sorry" to "YOU DON'T PAY ROAD TAX!"

Having a conversation is fine.  Grabbing a moving vehicle isn't.

> I would agree that, just like driving, channelling my inner zen in those situations left me feeling a lot better than getting angry about it. Nowadays I think about the angry, sweaty gammon behind the wheel and just appreciate that they aren't worth my energy. 

This is by far the best way.  It's just red mist, nothing good will ever come from it.  Humour them, give them a sarcastic clap, stick two fingers up, whatever.  But don't grab their vehicle and expect not to get seriously hurt.  And I don't mean that as a threat of assault (the driver has quite rightly been cautioned for that), I mean grabbing a moving motor vehicle is a seriously dangerous and foolish act in all circumstances.  Even the natural reaction to you doing this, them slamming on the brakes, could result in you going under the wheels.

Post edited at 14:42
3
In reply to Hardonicus:

I don't know what happened before that video clip, and the driver may well have done something really dangerous, justifying the anger.

But the clip shows them driving slowly, surrounded by people on bikes shouting and grabbing the car, with at least one in front filming and limiting the driver's ability to get away, and I think maybe another behind stopping them safely falling back.

What -is- the right thing to do in that situation? Accelerating away or braking could run over the person filming or the one behind, and even if they can stop they're then surrounded by people threatening them.

Not getting into that situation in the first place would obviously be best - but once there, I'm not sure I'd react very well either, cornered and threatened like that. Genuinely, if you can't talk them down (while still trying to drive and not accidentally kill any of them), what -should- you do?

3
In reply to skog:

Probably release the accelerator and slow to a stop gradually, then deal with the threat by pushing them out so you can close the window*?  But it seems to be a "baying mob" situation so it's understandable the driver might panic.

I don't think the driver could be criticised for just slamming on the brakes, though, even if that did cause injury.

* Or if they were outside, close it immediately.

Post edited at 14:54
2
 Timmd 16 Sep 2021
In reply to skog:

Having central locking, winding up the windows, and a phone to ring the police with seem like things to be thinking about towards staying calm, if a window gets smashed that's another level, but cars are pretty safe places to be.

If the driver pulled the cyclist in as described, that's something they did which brought the potential of an outside threat into their safest place to be.

Post edited at 14:57
 LastBoyScout 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Timmd:

The latter being why I think the driver did justify a caution (and received one).

But:

"He also explained why he had tried to talk to the driver in the first place.

He said: "Generally, in our experience, it just humanises the situation if we can let them blow off steam and appear calm, we usually explain that we all drive cars as well and apologise for any inconvenience even though we shouldn’t have to apologise it just seems to take the anger out of the situation. "

(Edited)

I'm unconvinced that this is likely an accurate description of the situation which will have involved a lot more "red mist" than he says.

Post edited at 15:00
4
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yeah, that probably would be best.

The link just posted by LastBoyScout is a bit more damning of the driver, they're clearly being a dick - but even then I'm not sure it's their fault they hit the bike that had just swung in front while their attention was being held by the confrontation. As you say, having a confrontation like that while moving is a really bad idea.

The punching's pretty clearly out of order, though!

2
 TMM 16 Sep 2021
In reply to LastBoyScout:

The longer video provides far more useful context. I can totally understand why many will be believe a caution to inadequate.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think the driver could be criticised for just slamming on the brakes, though, even if that did cause injury.

As a cyclist myself, I'm frequently embarrassed by the behaviour of other cyclists, particularly when they are in (usually all male) groups:

Driving across a local bridge a couple of years ago, I found myself in the middle of a group of 10-15 cyclists behaving like d***heads - overtaking on both sides simultaneously, weaving in and out of cars, swerving across in front of other vehicles, and all in steady 15 - 20 mph traffic where the slightest miscalculation could have (and later nearly did) get someone killed. A few hundred metres later, when the traffic had thinned out, I realised that two of them were drafting only a couple of metres behind me.  Then the car in front braked, meaning that I had to brake also.  One of the cyclists swerved and hit the kerb, the other swerved out into the adjacent lane where he came within millimetres of being taken out by an overtaking vehicle.

Nobody hurt, I thought.  Hope that's taught them a lesson.  Next thing I know, one of them is alongside my window screaming abuse at me and saying he's going to find out where I live, completely oblivious to the fact that he is patently in the wrong - if you travel too close to the vehicle in front it's your fault when things go wrong.

All the riders were in the livery of a prominent local cycle cafe and it crossed my mind to email or phone the owner and ask if he wanted people wearing his colours behaving like that - until I discovered that the guy who screamed through my window is in fact owner of the cafe!

That's been lying round unresolved but now it's off my chest.

1
 PaulJepson 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TMM:

Yeah, seeing as the cyclists did nothing wrong and the driver basically stopped so he could have a go.

Are you driving with due care and attention if you're trying to lamp someone out your window? Wonder what the legal outcome would have been if he'd gone another meter forward. 

7
In reply to skog:

> The punching's pretty clearly out of order, though!

Agreed.  I think this is a classic "two wrongs don't make a right" - both parties did things badly wrong.

4
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Yeah, seeing as the cyclists did nothing wrong and the driver basically stopped so he could have a go.

The cyclist grabbed onto a moving vehicle's wing mirror and admitted wilfully doing this himself.  There is no reason to do that, ever.  It is never going to be safer than not doing.

I was once "sideswiped" by a car, the action I took (and the safer one, which resulted in me staying on my bike albeit not pointing in the desired direction) was to push away from it and turn right, not grab it.

> Are you driving with due care and attention if you're trying to lamp someone out your window?

Clearly not, both driver and cyclist were in the wrong.

Post edited at 15:45
3
In reply to TMM:

> The longer video provides far more useful context. I can totally understand why many will be believe a caution to inadequate.

Thanks for pointing out the longer video, I hadn't realised it was there.

It makes it clear that the cyclist did not need to grab the wing mirror, and doing so was therefore an aggressive act and so contributory.

Both were extremely foolish, though I could see justification to prosecute the driver for dangerous driving (plus assault) given that he did the "brake test" which is unjustifiable under any circumstances, just as grabbing onto a moving vehicle is.

If I was driving the car (though I wouldn't have brake-tested cyclists because I'm not an idiot, so the circumstances would have to be different) in the circumstances I would have gradually stopped, closed the window, locked the doors and waited for the cyclists to go away, if they didn't then I'd call the Police, FWIW.  No justification for assault.

Post edited at 15:51
5
 deepsoup 16 Sep 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Yeah, seeing as the cyclists did nothing wrong and the driver basically stopped so he could have a go.

"Basically stopped" is understating it a bit, it's pretty clear from the longer video that he 'brake checked' the cyclists, forcing them to swerve to avoid running in to the back of him.  That's an offence of failing to drive with due care and attention in itself.

In reply to deepsoup:

> "Basically stopped" is understating it a bit, it's pretty clear from the longer video that he 'brake checked' the cyclists, forcing them to swerve to avoid running in to the back of him.  That's an offence of failing to drive with due care and attention in itself.

I'd say dangerous driving as it was wilful.  DWDCAA is more a "gross incompetence" type offence, e.g. weaving all over the place but not intentionally, just because you're not paying attention e.g. fiddling with the radio or something.

What was the caution for?  A driving offence or assault?  There seem to have been two offences committed by the driver here.

Post edited at 15:57
 peppermill 16 Sep 2021
In reply to TMM:

Yeah. Quite hard to call it an unprovoked attack though (that's my take on the vid). 

More generally that group kinda seems a bit big for my liking and a wee bit chaotic, which sets a few alarm bells ringing regarding the cyclist's general road manners and sense (or lack of) but I'm only speculating obv.

Basically, I think they're both wrong, which I don't think is an answer that's allowed these days ;p

3
In reply to peppermill:

> Basically, I think they're both wrong, which I don't think is an answer that's allowed these days ;p

Pretty much.  I'm finding again and again of late that if you're a moderate/centrist all that means is that both sides hate you.

Having seen the longer video I'd conclude that the driver should probably be charged with dangerous driving and assault and possibly receive a ban and retest, but the cyclist given a sharp telling off by a Police Officer (I don't think there is any applicable offence with regard to grabbing the wing mirror which was a wilful and dangerous act and totally unnecessary, though if there is then I'd suggest a caution for that).

Post edited at 16:00
1
 deepsoup 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I'd say dangerous driving as it was wilful.

Hm..  this suggests you're right:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

And according to this, the sentencing guidelines for that include a mandatory minimum 12 month ban with an extended test afterwards for the driver to get his licence back and a possible custodial sentence.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

That seems like quite a serious offence to have been completely ignored while he was being cautioned for the assault that occurred shortly afterwards.

 Iamgregp 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

"I put my hand on his wing mirror just to keep pace with him, just to keep up with the car..."

You can see that they're just barely moving when he did this, no need for him to touch the drivers mirror.  He's talking out of his arse there.

Of course the drivers actions are indefensible and go way beyond proportionate, and he's been rightly dealt with by the law but I feel that if the cyclist had kept his hands where they should have been, on his handlebars none of what followed would have happened.

   

1
In reply to Iamgregp:

Most probably.  The place he needed his hands was pulling the brakes to stop and avoid the danger ahead.

He had no need to "keep up with the car" - there was no possible good that could come of doing that, and plenty of harm.  He needed to stop and let the car driver give up and go away.

Post edited at 16:32
2
 Timmd 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, I guess the driver had some red mist too. It's always easier to say how one should be calmer from outside the situation too, a brother recently got checked up on by the police while returning the key for somebody he does care work for to a certain place in their front garden, and the less agreeable policeman of the 2 apparently seemed to enjoy the sense of power involved and told him he was being cantankerous, while he was being a bit stressed about explaining what he was doing and ringing another person to try and have things explained (the other policeman was perfectly fine apparently).

He explained it wasn't quite so easy at the time, when I mentioned that reminding himself and musing aloud that it wasn't an offence to hide a key in a front garden might have been a plan before offering to ring and have things explained.

I'm sure most police men and women are fine, all but one of my interactions have been agreeable, and the one occasion that wasn't, wasn't down to me (since I'm a law abiding person  ). 

Post edited at 16:44
 peppermill 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> "I put my hand on his wing mirror just to keep pace with him, just to keep up with the car..."

> You can see that they're just barely moving when he did this, no need for him to touch the drivers mirror.  He's talking out of his arse there.

> Of course the drivers actions are indefensible and go way beyond proportionate, and he's been rightly dealt with by the law but I feel that if the cyclist had kept his hands where they should have been, on his handlebars none of what followed would have happened.

>    

Yeah I'm not sure on which planet grabbing the wing mirror, and quite likely distracting the driver to the point of wiping out his wife was a good idea. Totally escalated an already heated exchange.

2
 Moacs 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Cyclist actually bends the wing mirror in.  Also looks like cyclist reaches into car rather than pulled in

6
 peppermill 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yeah, the mischievous part of me almost set up a road.cc account to say something similar, going by the comments already on there it would cause mayhem. Then I remembered I have a life and better things to be doing. 

In reply to peppermill:

 Timmd 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Moacs: I'm surprised at somebody who seems like an experienced cyclist making things worse like he seems to have managed to, I've been cycling around drivers since my 20's (now 41), and it didn't take many interactions to learn how to not make things worse, and I seemingly take after my Dad in being a left hander who can be quick to become annoyed (thanks to one's brain being wired slightly differently apparently, though being aware of that helps in remembering to pause). 

The driver wasn't without fault, but the person in the car will always win if they lose their cool, are triggered into reacting by somebody shouting at them...

Post edited at 17:38
2
 Wire Shark 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Clearly not, both driver and cyclist were in the wrong.

Yet you seem to be on a mission to assign most blame to the cyclist, judging from your many contributions to this.  Half expect you to start angling for "punch a cyclist in the head" day.

3
In reply to Wire Shark:

My view has shifted on seeing the full video on road.cc.  However it does remain my view that the cyclist could have avoided the whole thing by not attempting to speak to the driver, an utterly pointless act as someone who drives like that will never accept they are wrong.

 Flinticus 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

That doesn't seem a fair analysis of the footage.

In fact it is:

Cyclist rests a hand on the mirror

Immediately driver pulls him in and starts hitting him

Your version has interposed an altercation or argument before the cyclist is pulled off his bike and then hit by the driver.

I was agreeing with you until I saw the footage.

Clearly the driver was 90% at fault.

3
 Flinticus 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Moacs:

You need your eyes tested!

2
In reply to Flinticus:

There was no reason whatsoever for the cyclist to touch the car.

It had only negative possible consequences, no positive ones, depending on the driver's actions.  It could have meant death.

Post edited at 20:56
3
 deepsoup 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> My view has shifted on seeing the full video on road.cc.  However it does remain my view that the cyclist could have avoided the whole thing by not attempting to speak to the driver, an utterly pointless act as someone who drives like that will never accept they are wrong.

He couldn't have avoided the 'brake check', which had already happened at that point, and which constituted an instance of 'dangerous driving' as you yourself pointed out above -  a more serious offence than the common assault the driver was cautioned for.

 Jim Hamilton 16 Sep 2021
In reply to Flinticus:

In reply to Flinticus:

> That doesn't seem a fair analysis of the footage.

> In fact it is:

> Cyclist rests a hand on the mirror

> Immediately driver pulls him in and starts hitting him

That’s not quite right either!? 

Cyclist tries to rest on mirror, doesn't quite manage it, words spoken (probably something like don’t touch my car) and then the above.  

1
In reply to deepsoup:

> He couldn't have avoided the 'brake check', which had already happened at that point, and which constituted an instance of 'dangerous driving' as you yourself pointed out above -  a more serious offence than the common assault the driver was cautioned for.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

5
In reply to Hardonicus:

"There's a war going on outside no man is safe from."  Anyone else remember that jungle track?  Turns out the sample was Mob Deep, never knew that!

I envy the zen state some advocate, just to let it drift past...but after a few years of being constantly bullied and threatened by a minority of car drivers I gettit now why some cyclists overeact and pile in.  I'm not advocating it - it's stupid, we are not the ones in control of the metal death machine, it never ends with the driver saying "Fair cop mate I'll try to do better next time".  Someone with their heart rate elevated, with a dose of adrenaline whacked through them and then trying to have a robust conversation that's never going to end well in moving traffic...yeah let's try not to eh.

I'm glad the cameras seemed to have an effect on the driver's behaviour when he was told they were recording.  I was delighted to have the last word on my commute the other day when I caught up with the taxi who had just close-passed at the next set of lights, he told me "I was just driving my line", whatever that means, presumably his 'line' went within a foot of me.  Anyway "Your Taxi-licence, my video camera" gave him pause for thought.  Perhaps if enough of us use them and the knowledge that the police do follow up on evidence submitted get's into the general motoring consciousness it might make people a little more circumspect about some of the worst examples of their driving.

Hey-ho be careful out there everyone.

 Trevers 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think the cyclist's actions were contributory and dangerous.  You don't cycle up to a moving car, grab onto the mirror and have an altercation with the driver while moving.  That's idiotic beyond belief and utterly indefensible, however bad the actions of the driver were.  The correct thing to do is to send the helmet camera footage of the alleged dangerous overtake to the Police* and not act like a vigilante which was clearly never going to do anything other than provoke an argument or fight.

> I don't know if there's a suitable offence to charge the cyclist with, but if he were on a motorcycle or e-scooter a dangerous driving charge would clearly apply.

> * Which they do act on.  A friend (yes, a friend, not me) was actually banned for a year and made to retake his test on strength of dashcam evidence of him doing a dangerous overtake which very nearly caused a serious accident.

This is highly variable, between forces and individual officers. I was harassed and called a criminal by police for providing helmetcam footage of a very deliberate and aggressive and potentially dangerous overtake, because I also swore a bit in the footage following the incident.

The cyclist in this clip was definitely an idiot for grabbing a moving vehicle. I'm also not entirely sure what they were aggrieved about initially, although the clip of the initial overtake is very truncated.

 deepsoup 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Two wrongs don't make a right.

Or three:

  • Driver 'brake checks' the cyclists - dangerous driving.
  • Cyclist grabs the wing mirror - not very bright but not an offence.
  • Driver repeatedly punches cyclist in the head - assault.
 deepsoup 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Trevers:

> ..although the clip of the initial overtake is very truncated.

Did you see the longer clip?  There's a bit more info here than in the BBC story:
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-punched-repeatedly-head-furious-driver-286281

In reply to deepsoup:

> Did you see the longer clip?  There's a bit more info here than in the BBC story:https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-punched-repeatedly-head-furious-driver-286281

Typical BBC.  The whole incident looks completely different in the longer clip.

3
In reply to deepsoup:

That is a reasonable summary, though grabbing any part of a moving vehicle wilfully and without good reason when cycling or walking probably should be an offence, it just happens not to be.  It is certainly grossly foolish and dangerous behaviour and likely to cause a serious accident (which indeed it nearly did).  So just because the cyclist did not commit an offence does not mean I don't believe his actions were contributory to the outcome.

However it does seem strange to me that only one of the offences (assault) has been considered against the driver.  Dangerous driving, a 12 month ban and retest would certainly seem in order, purely for the "brake test", of which the longer video on road.cc seems to provide clear evidence.

On the other hand, what the longer video also shows is a long period, about 10-20 seconds, between the overtake and the "brake test".  If, as it appears, the cyclists had to swerve to avoid a collision when this occurred, they were too fast, too close or both, so must also share further blame.  One must cycle or drive at a speed able to stop within the distance one can see to be clear, and they were clearly on the very edge of that.  The driver may have stopped for a genuine reason (we know they didn't, but they could have done) and the cyclists needed to be taking account of that possibility in choosing their speed and distance.

Post edited at 08:51
4
 PaulJepson 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd like to say that I consider putting your hand on a car maybe a 1 on the c*nt scale, with viciously assaulting someone somewhere around 10. 

A few too many people in this thread seem to be suggesting the blame lies with both parties. Yeah, 2 wrongs dont make a right but when one of the wrongs is putting your hand on someone's wing mirror and the other is deliberately trying to put a vulnerable road user in danger, repeatedly punching someone in the head and nearly running someone over, I find the comments leveling blame at the cyclist a worrying agenda. 

Cyclist did something silly but not something I would consider an offense. Driver is a c*nt and should be in jail.

5
In reply to Neil Williams:

> There was no reason whatsoever for the cyclist to touch the car.

> It had only negative possible consequences, no positive ones, depending on the driver's actions.  It could have meant death.

So your view is that by touching the car the cyclist invites death?

 rogerwebb 17 Sep 2021
In reply to deepsoup:

> Or three:

> Driver 'brake checks' the cyclists - dangerous driving.

> Cyclist grabs the wing mirror - not very bright but not an offence.

> Driver repeatedly punches cyclist in the head - assault.

If I might modify that, if I happened to be marking that case I would consider:

Driver brake checks cyclists- Charge dangerous accept a careless

Cyclist grabs wing mirror-Culpable and Reckless conduct (You did whilst riding a pedal cycle seize the wing mirror of a moving vehicle, distract the driver all to the danger of the lieges)- issue a warning letter (There must be an English and Welsh equivalent)

Driver punches cyclist 1- Dangerous driving- Driving a vehicle whilst punching a cyclist pretty much nails the definition- 'the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous'-don't accept a careless

Driver punches cyclist 2-Assault-if pleads to the dangerous consider dropping (although I might tie myself in knots and think about adding 'to the danger of life' in which case it might not go away but is a bit double charged)

To my mind the driving whilst punching a cyclist is by far the most serious offence here.

Post edited at 09:30
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

It's not as much a view as it is an observation. If while I'm cycling I grab onto someone's mirror and they just accelerate, that could pull me off balance and drop them onto the side of their moving vehicle. Regardless of the assault the driver committed, it's not something anyone should be doing.

In reply to PaulJepson:

> I'd like to say that I consider putting your hand on a car maybe a 1 on the c*nt scale, with viciously assaulting someone somewhere around 10. 

> A few too many people in this thread seem to be suggesting the blame lies with both parties. Yeah, 2 wrongs dont make a right but when one of the wrongs is putting your hand on someone's wing mirror and the other is deliberately trying to put a vulnerable road user in danger, repeatedly punching someone in the head and nearly running someone over, I find the comments leveling blame at the cyclist a worrying agenda. 

> Cyclist did something silly but not something I would consider an offense. Driver is a c*nt and should be in jail.

The driver is clearly offended by being held up in his desperate desire to get where he is going (taking his pregnant wife to hospital for example you would think) but then decides he's got plenty of time to get involved in a mouth off with. Seems like he was more interested in having a fight than getting where he was going.

 StuPoo2 17 Sep 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> So your view is that by touching the car the cyclist invites death?

Regarding your very specific comment.

Let's imagine a different situation.  A pedestrian grabs hold of moving lorry as it passes her/him by.  The lorry drags the pedestrian under the wheels of the lorry and she/he is severely injured.  

Would we have considered that the pedestrian action of grabbing a moving lorry as it passed her/him by might have been inviting death/severe injury. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that we might - yes.  

Probably an unwise move to grab a moving car on public road.  In this particular situation, I very much doubt that it was done in any sort of deescalating move.  I think those of us who cycle on the road with clubs know fine well that grabbing hold of a moving car, irrespective of your reasons why, is not an action that is likely going to result in deescalating a situation with a driver.

It is unfortunate because had the cyclist not grabbed hold of the wing mirror and everything else had continued to play out as it did ... there would have been ~zero discussion about who is in the wrong in this case.

Clearly the driver was 100% in the wrong throughout.  However, in an attempt to be unbiased, I think the cyclists went in for a confrontation.  

Good example of why we all need cameras front and back on our bikes.

#cyclist

5
 jkarran 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Either way, grabbing a moving vehicle from another is completely unacceptable in any circumstances, and could easily have caused a serious accident (indeed, did cause his other half to fall, I believe).

Presumably she'd actually stopped in front of the car to prevent it moving off while discussions were had about the earlier stupidity. Otherwise it's impossible to see how one cyclist holding onto the side at very low speed directly results in another on the floor under the front bumper.

What a shower of dicks, they should both (all, it's hard to see who was involved in what) be punished by being forced to spend time in each other's company.

jk

2
In reply to rogerwebb:

When I saw the BBC footage my first thoughts were the cyclist needed done and the car driver was the aggrieved party.  It looked like a reasonably safe overtake then a group of cyclists chased the car driver down, grabbing the mirror and trying to stop him.  In those circumstances with multiple angry people coming at him and grabbing hold of the car I'd give the car driver some leeway.

Then I saw the longer version and it looks completely different.  It was the car that slowed right down in front of the cyclists rolled down his window and gave them the finger so the 'interaction' was initiated by the car driver rather than cyclists chasing him down.  And it was obvious the speed was really low when the cyclist touched the mirror and might just be steadying himself to carry on the 'discussion'.   Then he got grabbed and punched multiple times which looked unprovoked.

It's actually pretty shocking how you can change the whole character of an incident by editing and that a 'reputable' news organisation would do that.

2
 rogerwebb 17 Sep 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's actually pretty shocking how you can change the whole character of an incident by editing and that a 'reputable' news organisation would do that.

Sadly quite common and not just by news agencies. Video and cctv evidence is often of the edited highlights variety.

The cyclist was wrong to hold onto the mirror but in no way does that justify the reaction.

I would imagine though that down south as up here the court system is creaking and as no harm was done the expedient route was taken. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't know if there's a suitable offence to charge the cyclist with, but if he were on a motorcycle or e-scooter a dangerous driving charge would clearly apply...

A somewhat antique law with a bizarre comical name "Furious Cycling", you couldn't make that up! But there it is...

 wintertree 17 Sep 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

In theory a cyclist can also get a code MS56 for incitement to an MS50 - Motor Racing on the Highway.

Obviously I have no specific circumstances in mind.  Although it would probably have to be the kind of road that puts the nerves up for some drivers, like a steep switchback with some dodgy crash barriers...

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> So your view is that by touching the car the cyclist invites death?

It depends how you put it.

Does the cyclist deserve death as a punishment for doing so?  No, clearly not, though it would be justifying of a caution for a dangerous cycling offence were one applicable.

Could the outcome of such a stupid act be reasonably expected to result in death or life changing injury to the cyclist or others a direct result of an ensuing road traffic collision, despite having no conceivable positive outcome?  Absolutely.

Thus it is the act of a total fool who can't control his red mist.

The only sensible action on seeing the stationary car was to apply his brakes and stay well clear.

Post edited at 11:20
5
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> A somewhat antique law with a bizarre comical name "Furious Cycling", you couldn't make that up! But there it is...

That offence is typically for excess speed etc (regardless of the speed limit which itself applies only to motor vehicles), so I doubt it could be applied to this case.

 PaulJepson 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

You are Ronnie Pickering and I claim my £5.

In reply to PaulJepson:

I think jail is excessive but a caution for the assault plus a 12 month ban and retest for dangerous driving would be proportionate.  The video is clear evidence of both offences, it is odd that only one was dealt with.

Post edited at 11:22
1
In reply to PaulJepson:

> You are Ronnie Pickering and I claim my £5.

I have no idea who that is, but I do strongly take the view (look back through old threads if you like) that the right way to deal with road misuse is to give the fool space to be a fool, humour them, swear to yourself and if it is bad enough (as this is to me) report to the Police.  Two wrongs do not make a right, and aggression will always end up met by more aggression so serves no purpose whatsoever.

Defensive driving and cycling is always the right approach, even when met by aggressive driving or cycling.

 Iamgregp 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

RONNIE PICKERING!!!!

In reply to thread:

Regardless of any of the other rights & wrongs I cannot see any justification for the driver punching the cyclist. If the driver thought he was being physically threatened, then the obvious thing is to push the cyclist away and roll up the window.

I do rather wonder at the stupidity of the "mirror" cyclist's wife (I believe) going in front of the car to film things when in the midst of an altercation with said car.

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

It has also applied for very slowly cycling through red lights so excess speed isn't necessary. Its use is pretty nebulous when nothing else fits. I love the name though: Wanton and Furious, they don't name laws like they used to!

 Timmd 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> There was no reason whatsoever for the cyclist to touch the car.

> It had only negative possible consequences, no positive ones, depending on the driver's actions.  It could have meant death.

That's my thinking, it's (seen as) an extension of their personal space.

2
 peppermill 17 Sep 2021
In reply to the thread:

Aye, so both wrong, just the driver much more so.

1
In reply to peppermill:

> Aye, so both wrong, just the driver much more so.

Yep, exactly.

 Timmd 17 Sep 2021
In reply to peppermill:

Yes, a small silly and a big twunt.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is that why you deleted your original post? I replied and asked if you were trolling, but by the time I hit send your message had disappeared.

In reply to CantClimbTom:

> A somewhat antique law with a bizarre comical name "Furious Cycling", you couldn't make that up! But there it is...

It’s not furious cycling 

The legislation is from 1861

“Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.

Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, …”

It doesn’t even need to be furious it can just be wilful neglect to the safety of others. A bike is defined as a carriage so can fall under this legalisation. 

 Yanis Nayu 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I really struggle to understand your vehemence in condemning the cyclist who had had his and his wife’s lives put at risk by a c*nt, a c*nt who then physically assaulted him. You’ve expended about 10 times the energy criticising the cyclist who was far, far less to blame. 
I’m f*cking sick of having my life put at risk by wankers like the driver in this case and it pisses me right off to have people like you defending that status quo with your “yeah but cyclists” bollocks. 

8
 peppermill 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes, a massive cnt. 

Neil has just taken a very long winded way of saying they both behaved like complete wallopers, the driver far, far more so.

Having been in many( and now refrain from) large group rides like this, seeing idiotic behaviour from cyclists including terrible route choice for a group to being utterly oblivious to other road users and even waving traffic through in completely batsh*t sections of road into oncoming traffic I refuse to subscribe to the Cyclist= always innocent, car driver= evil serial killer mentality. 

2
 MG 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu 

There is probably a  link  between your aggression and how you are (or perceive yourself to be) treated by other road users.

7
 Yanis Nayu 17 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

An easy jibe to make but wrong. You’d be angry if you had people nearly killing you on a regular basis and then read constant apologists for it. 

4
 MG 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Given no one has been an apologist here, I rather suspect you aren't regular threatened with death either. 

You'll find if you cycle politely and considerately, there are rarely problems.

9
In reply to TobyA:

> Is that why you deleted your original post? I replied and asked if you were trolling, but by the time I hit send your message had disappeared.

Yes.  I saw the longer second video and realised that the post based on the BBC video was rubbish.

 Timmd 17 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

> Given no one has been an apologist here, I rather suspect you aren't regular threatened with death either. 

> You'll find if you cycle politely and considerately, there are rarely problems.

It may be depend on where he lives? I'd be careful with your assumptions about him, too, I only started to find cycling in traffic less stressful once I started to expect people to *not* be using their mirrors adequately, drivers not being patient and making a close pass is definitely 'a thing', too, something which one can expect to have happen every so often.

When I think about it, that happening has got nothing to do with how polite and considerate I've been, leading up to that happening, it's because the person behind 'simply has to get past'. 

Which is where defensive cycling is important, but that can irritate the people who think cyclists should be in the gutter to let drivers go past, though there seem to be fewer of them than the drivers who make close passes (plausibly they overlap, but as far as distinct interactions go, there seem to be fewer of the second kind, fewer drivers who'll communicate that one should get out of the way).

I've purposefully reduced the amount I cycle in traffic, to shift the odds of being alright more in my favour again...

Post edited at 22:07
1
 Yanis Nayu 17 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

Absolute bollocks. 

4
 deepsoup 17 Sep 2021
In reply to rogerwebb:

> If I might modify that, if I happened to be marking that case I would consider:

> Driver brake checks cyclists- Charge dangerous accept a careless

> Cyclist grabs wing mirror-Culpable and Reckless conduct (You did whilst riding a pedal cycle seize the wing mirror of a moving vehicle, distract the driver all to the danger of the lieges)- issue a warning letter (There must be an English and Welsh equivalent)

> Driver punches cyclist 1- Dangerous driving- Driving a vehicle whilst punching a cyclist pretty much nails the definition- 'the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous'-don't accept a careless

> Driver punches cyclist 2-Assault-if pleads to the dangerous consider dropping (although I might tie myself in knots and think about adding 'to the danger of life' in which case it might not go away but is a bit double charged)

> To my mind the driving whilst punching a cyclist is by far the most serious offence here.

Interesting to get a view from someone who knows what he's on about with the legal stuff, thanks.

 MG 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well, I manage to cycle while not feeling threatened or in a constant rage at drivers.  

2
 Timmd 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Absolute bollocks. 

The idea that being considerate and polite could eliminate any problems caused by truck and van and car drivers while cycling, isn't the closest idea to reality I've come across, like being nice to people meaning nobody else ever won't be. For every child I'd wish the second was true, though.

Post edited at 22:24
 PaulJepson 17 Sep 2021
In reply to Currently Resting:

The cyclist who killed a pedestrian last year was convicted and sent to jail for it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58009784.amp

In reply to MG:

Your are either bloody lucky, or dont actually cycle. I like to think I I cycle politely and non aggressively but am threatened by drivers on a daily basis, sometimes its thoughtless shit like the guy jumping red lights on my way home from work today, sometimes its mad stuff like strangers leaning out of there cars trying to hit you, or verbally abuse you for no reason other then you are on a bike (happens about twice a year for me, happens more to my wife, probably because arseholes like threatening lone women and being on a bike seems to make you a target). I don't hate all drivers, I'm a driver! I just wish people would respect the fact they are in massive metal killing boxes and pay attention.

About half of the regular commuters on my office have had serious accidents due to being run over by thoughtless drivers, it's pretty shitty that I basically have to accept if I want to cycle to work this will inevitably happen to me (I have actually been hit twice from behind by motorists and was bloody lucky to walk away on both occasions). 

Yes cyclists can be dicks like everyone, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bicycle.

The way we normalise deaths and accidents related to driving in this country is absolutely bonkers

I'm totally with Yanis here

Post edited at 23:47
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> I I cycle politely and non aggressively but am threatened by drivers on a daily basis,

> About half of the regular commuters on my office have had serious accidents

These are just ridiculous statements.  In 3 30 years I have never been threatened when cycling and know of one serious accident among friends/colleagues.

6
In reply to MG:

> These are just ridiculous statements.  In 3 30 years I have never been threatened when cycling and know of one serious accident among friends/colleagues.

Could your complete lack of self awareness be the problem?

5
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

I guess I could be oblivious to repeated threats but unlikely on balance. 

In reply to MG:

THEY ARE NOT RIDICULOUS IT HAPPENS ALL THE BLOODY TIME!!

I'm not making this up, I'm genuinely pleased you have such a nice life but you cant just say people are just making it up just because it doesn't align with your world view. 

Allthough if you've been cycling for 330 years that is a fair bit of experience...

Edit to say, perhaps I was using a little bit of hyperbole, when i said threatened I mean like driving aggressively at me. I only get 'proper threatened' like people shouting and trying to hit me once or twice a year.

Post edited at 08:34
2
 Stichtplate 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> Yes cyclists can be dicks like everyone, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bicycle.

> The way we normalise deaths and accidents related to driving in this country is absolutely bonkers

Not really, in fact not at all. We have remarkably safe roads, especially remarkable when you consider high levels of car ownership, volume of traffic, poor provision of cycle lanes, how many of our urban centres mix vehicles and pedestrians and how bloody awful/ changeable our weather is.  179 out of 183 countries for RTC fatalities per capita according to this source:

https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

Same ballpark for Wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Over all we do pretty well on this score, but then, as a nation we're also bloody brilliant at ringing our hands and moaning about how crap we are, regardless of the reality.

Post edited at 08:23
In reply to Stichtplate:

While that is great, what I mean is, if i die on the roads it will be considered 'normal' car related deaths are normalised, we all drive cars right? We accept this. 

I think I part of the problem with attitude in the UK is cycling is considered not normal whitch seems to make some people think cyclists deserve what they get and a fair game for abuse, this seems to be playing out in this thread.

2
 Stichtplate 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> While that is great, what I mean is, if i die on the roads it will be considered 'normal' car related deaths are normalised, we all drive cars right? We accept this. 

I disagree. In both my personal life and my professional life I've had to deal with far more suicides than RTC fatalities. A quick google of the stats bears this out. We have more than triple the number of deaths by suicide every year. Nobody would suggest suicide had been normalised.

> I think I part of the problem with attitude in the UK is cycling is considered not normal whitch seems to make some people think cyclists deserve what they get and a fair game for abuse, this seems to be playing out in this thread.

This has been touted a lot but in all honesty I just think it's down to the small minority of people who are pricks, plus the large majority of people who can be pricks, being forced to share crowded roads in vehicles who's mismatched average speed makes it sometimes difficult for them to play nicely together.

Post edited at 08:43
2
 JimR 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

Firstly even before the wing mirror   grabbing I’d have done a police report based on bike camera footage. Secondly I’d want to know why he grabbed the wing mirror, it may be he was clipped in and struggling to unclip as chaos enveloped him. He then grabbed the wing mirror to avoid toppling into the car. The driver reacts by punching the guy and nearly runs over his wife. This is quite simply a number of criminal offences and he should have the book flung at him

2
In reply to Stichtplate:

The real issue for me, which I think a lot of people who don't ride bikes don't really appreciate, is that of you do a dickish thing in a car to another car user, cut them up at a roundabout, overtake on a blind bend, whatever, people get there horns and get on with there day. Normal. If you have the same interaction between a motorist and a cyclist it's a different scenario with several tonnes of metal vs squishy flesh. It's very different, someone could have been easily killed. Both on the vid behaved badly, only one was in charge of a car which could have killed somebody.

I just wish more road users would appreciate this and drive with more consideration.

2
In reply to peppermill:

> Yes, a massive cnt. 

> Neil has just taken a very long winded way of saying they both behaved like complete wallopers, the driver far, far more so.

Correct.  I am mostly slating the cyclist because others are doing a perfectly good job of slating the driver, and you will note that I have said I think, having watched the longer video, that the driver deserves a dangerous driving charge and a 12 month ban and retest in addition to the caution for assault, which to me is the correct punishment for that given that the cyclist escalated the situation too.  It is basically a pub brawl in a different setting.

As a cyclist (and driver) I am thoroughly sick of the behaviour of other cyclists (and drivers) giving me a bad name by treating the road as a battleground rather than a shared resource.

This cyclist allowed the red mist to win and did something totally unnecessary and really dangerous that, due to the distraction it caused, nearly got his other half killed.

That cannot be disregarded just because the driver did something worse.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  It is playground politics - "he started it" - it does not matter who started it, the right thing to do is use the road defensively and de-escalate the situation, and then involve the Police if necessary.

If on the other hand the cyclist had been more sensible and simply waved his fist and swore a bit, I would have been slating the driver only, particularly if he then got out of his car and thumped the cyclist.

Post edited at 09:26
1
In reply to JimR:

The cyclist openly admitted why he grabbed the wing mirror on the BBC video, namely to keep up with the car to remonstrate, to paraphrase his words because I can't remember the exact wording.

This was a wilfully dangerous and stupid act.  Yes, after a wilfully dangerous and stupid act by the car driver, but that does not make it OK.

It is clear from the video that it was not for innocent reasons and he admitted himself that it wasn't.

Post edited at 09:15
5
In reply to ebdon:

> I think I part of the problem with attitude in the UK is cycling is considered not normal whitch seems to make some people think cyclists deserve what they get and a fair game for abuse, this seems to be playing out in this thread.

It appears that is aimed at me, so I will answer.

I don't believe in any way the cyclist deserved the initial dangerous overtake and brake test.  I have said repeatedly that the driver should be charged with an offence and receive a ban for that.

However, what followed that act was completely unnecessary, and the overall outcome would have been better if the cyclist had not then escalated the situation.  Fists would have been waved, swear words said, and the ride no doubt continued without much of an issue.

Is it OK to punch someone because they say something you don't like?  No, and the driver received a caution for that.

It seems that some will only be satisfied if we say the cyclist did nothing at all wrong and the driver receive a prison sentence.  That is to me nonsense.

Post edited at 09:20
3
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> I just wish more road users would appreciate this and drive with more consideration.

I said exactly this above and was ridiculed regarding cyclists for the suggestion! Apparently it has no benefit!

1
In reply to MG:

> These are just ridiculous statements.  In 3 30 years I have never been threatened when cycling and know of one serious accident among friends/colleagues.

Similar here.  The odd bit of passive aggression as always happens on the roads - a sarcastic shrug or slow clap, the odd swear word - but never anything even remotely serious in terms of confrontation.  I put this down to driving and cycling in a defensive manner, as every road user should do.  Give idiots space to be an idiot, give people space to make mistakes, and very rarely does the situation turn really bad.

Post edited at 09:24
3
In reply to Neil Williams:

It wasnt aimed at you, to be honest I hadn't even read the middle bit of this thread, it was the same old story, I seem to regurgitate on these cycling threads based on what I unfortunately experience on my daily commute. Perhaps triggered by nearly being run over for the second time in a day yesterday by the old classic manoeuvre of the aggressive overtake followed by the immediate turning in front of you at speed whilst cycling to the cinema last night. Emergency break into the gutter for me again...

I in no way condone bad behaviour by cyclists, I'm not sticking up for 'team cycling' regardless, tribal nonsense is part of the problem. I just don't think a lot of people really appreciated how crap it can be cycling on British roads.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Is this what 'gas lighting' is? As a middle aged middle class white bloke its somthing I don't have much experience of.

In reply to ebdon:

No, it is justifiable criticism of both sides and completely avoidable by this specific cyclist.

If the cyclists had simply stopped and waved their fists, I would only be criticising the driver.

1
In reply to Neil Williams:

I was more referring to the the fact that you and MG both asserted that stuff that actually happens to me is 'ridiculous' and are inferring i am either making it up or somehow bringing on myself.

1
In reply to ebdon:

I don't know how you ride so I can't comment on your own experiences directly, but the actions of some cyclists I have seen that have resulted in confrontation were certainly contributory to that confrontation occurring.

2
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> I was more referring to the the fact that you and MG both asserted that stuff that actually happens to me is 'ridiculous' and are inferring i am either making it up or somehow bringing on myself.

Well you did step back from the being  threatened claim, and the numbers for cyclists having accidents don't support your accident claim. So it does look like you are either work with unusually accident prone people, or are incorrect. 

8
 PaulJepson 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I have primarily cycled to work in Bristol ('Britain's cycling city') for the last decade and whilst it wasn't happening at the same frequency as it seems to be to ebdon, I definitely experienced threatening driving and behaviour on a weekly basis.

I like to think I got pretty good at my 9 mile route over the 5 years I did one particular job; I knew where the traffic islands on blind corners were, I knew where the car doors would be flung open, I knew where the drivers would impatiently close-pass me on the hills. 

I don't appreciate the suggestion you seem to be making that if dangerous things happen to a cyclist, they probably did something wrong.

In reply to ebdon:

I must be one of the lucky ones too, i don't think I've ever had anyone yell at me, not seriously anyway. Definitely not had anything thrown at me. Of course people pass me uncomfortably close, and often wave my arm in a sort of "more space please!" gesture. Who knows if anyone looks in their mirror and sees it, but for traffic yet to pass it seems to remind them to actually overtake me not just squeeze past without crossing the centre line. But overall I think I'm seeing more better driving around cyclist than before. 

For context, I do about 100 kms a week during term time. NE Derbyshire/S Yorks, but ride my bike in other places too and don't notice big differences.

 RobAJones 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Stichtplate:

> We have remarkably safe roads 

I agree, but perhaps not for cyclists?

UK cycling fatalities are roughly on a par with the Netherlands, we have about x4 their population, but the average distance cycled by a women is 22 miles (yearly) in the UK and 480 in the Netherlands. Does that imply you in terms of fatalities cycling in the Netherlands is x5 "safer" It's difficult be sure, as you say, the infrastructure is very different in other countries. You post has got me thinking that why are British roads remarkably safe in general, but not so for cyclists? 

 Toby_W 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Always saddens me to see threads with people making excuses for physical violence like this.  I’m reminded of Patrick Stewart talking about domestic violence and how he’d listen to police and social workers saying to his mother, you must have done something to have set him off….

No excuse.

Just saw a police post asking for witnesses, driver on drugs and drunk went into the back of a group of cyclists.  3 in hospital, they were utterly blameless in the accident.  There are the comments, cyclists are becoming and increasing danger on the roads, a cyclist cut in front of me, riding two abreast etc etc.

Awful.

Toby

Post edited at 11:35
 deepsoup 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> Is this what 'gas lighting' is?

Telling you that you're wrong about your direct lived experience?  It didn't/doesn't happen - you're imagining it etc.? 

Yes, it pretty much is.

Post edited at 11:38
In reply to MG:

> These are just ridiculous statements.  In 3 30 years I have never been threatened when cycling and know of one serious accident among friends/colleagues.

Where exactly are you cycling?

 I commute to work two to three times a week when the weather is good (I drive otherwise). I have come to expect 3-4 close passes per commute with 1 out of 10 being so close it scares me, with numerous acts of aggressive driving, careless manoeuvring on top of that. Actual shouted abuse not so much but I can think of three incidents in the last 5 years.

In reply to PaulJepson:

> I don't appreciate the suggestion you seem to be making that if dangerous things happen to a cyclist, they probably did something wrong.

That is a rather strong statement.  I would rather say that many of these "helmet cam" videos show cyclists who are riding too aggressively for the conditions and often do, as this one did, feature a poor choice that contributed to the severity of the incident.

While by no means universally true (a good example of it not being true is cited above), there are often two parties to a road accident of any kind - the one who made the initial mistake, and the one who failed to drive defensively enough to avoid it becoming anything more than a blaring of the horn and waving of the finger.

Post edited at 12:23
9
In reply to deepsoup:

> Telling you that you're wrong about your direct lived experience?  It didn't/doesn't happen - you're imagining it etc.? 

> Yes, it pretty much is.

I don't believe anyone told them their experience was false, but rather than it was atypical.  And we weren't talking about bad driving (rare to go out of the house by any mode of transport without seeing some of that) but rather wilfully aggression actively aimed at the cyclist.  Most "close passes", for instance, while unacceptable, are simply incompetent driving and not wilful aggression.

Post edited at 12:27
7
In reply to Timmd:

> It may be depend on where he lives? 

Possibly, I have found a massive variability and I do a hell of a lot less miles than Yanis and Ebdon so they will experience the worst. I have rarely had any problems cycling in South Derbyshire, the Peak and rural Nottinghamshire, yet I get a good number of t**ts in Nottingham itself and the one time I cycled in the Chilterns both me and the person I was with I got clipped and forced into a ditch by an angry Jaguar driver in a lane that was only narrow enough for that to happen for less than 50 metres. 

Even as a driver it's weird when you are somewhere and everyone around you drives *super* aggressively, I suspect it's some sort of self-perpetuating phenomenon where people adjust their behaviour to what they see around them...

Post edited at 12:38
 deepsoup 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't believe anyone told them their experience was false, but rather than it was atypical.

Hm, dunno.  Personally I would interpret "These are just ridiculous statements." as more the former than the latter.

In reply to deepsoup:

> Hm, dunno.  Personally I would interpret "These are just ridiculous statements." as more the former than the latter.

Fair point.  Perhaps I should have removed that specific bit from the quote when agreeing with the principle of the posting.

 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Currently Inverness.  Previously Coventry and Nottingham. I have simply never been threatened and don't believe people who say it happens regularly.  When it does happen, it tends to make the news (see link in OP). If this sort of thing really was routine, it wouldn't be reported.

Yes occasional closs passes etc, almost always due to mistakes or carelessness, not aggression. 

I get the impression there are some cyclists who go looking for trouble and find it, much like some people seem to regular get in to fights but everyone else gets along fine.

7
 steve taylor 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> There was no reason whatsoever for the cyclist to touch the car.

There was no reason for the driver to be pi$$ed off about a relatively small group of cyclists holding him up for a short while

There was no reason for him to beep his horn when overtaking

There was no reason (and likely DWDCAA) to brake, as he did, once he'd overtaken some of them

There was no reason for the cyclist to touch the wing mirror.

There was no reason for the driver to pull the cyclists arm into his car

There was no reason for the driver to punch the cyclist.

There was no reason for the driver to nearly run-over another cyclist.

The cyclist clearly isn't 100% in the right. However, the driver acted in a way that could have seriously injured several people due.

I can see who deserves most of the blame for this incident. If you can't, the you are part of the problem.

1
In reply to steve taylor:

> I can see who deserves most of the blame for this incident. If you can't, the you are part of the problem.

I think you pulled one comment out of context. Neil very much does put the majority of the blame on the driver, he's just pointing out that red mist turned what would have been even more clear cut into a more dangerous situation than it could have otherwise been.

1
In reply to Alkis:

Yep, that. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

MG have since clarified and said “I have simply never been threatened and don't believe people who say it happens regularly”. This is gaslighting.

Of course he then gives examples of close passes, which he has experienced, but dismisses as threatening, because it’s just mistakes or carelessness. This is moronic.

He of course adds that anyone on a bike who regularly witnesses poor behaviour from motorists is just looking for trouble.

2
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Your posting style is the written  analogue of the sort of behaviour I am referring to.  You are simply looking for an argument.

12
 RobAJones 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> anyone on a bike who regularly witnesses poor behaviour from motorists is just looking for trouble.

I suppose that makes this type of report easy to dismiss.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416303639

although the authors did seem to discount 3% of the sample, for this reason.

In reply to MG:

> Your posting style is the written  analogue of the sort of behaviour I am referring to.  You are simply looking for an argument.

More attempts at gaslighting.

4
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

Top tip. Saying "gaslighting" isn't a knock down way to win all arguments.  In fact it's gibberish.

8
In reply to MG:

You know what it means, I guess you probably know you are doing it. Saying it is gibberish just makes you look like an idiot.

6
 deepsoup 18 Sep 2021
In reply to steve taylor:

> I can see who deserves most of the blame for this incident. If you can't, the you are part of the problem.

I don't think that's fair.  Neil has made it plain that he too thinks the driver deserves most of the blame and should have been done for 'dangerous driving' which would involve at least a year's ban and re-test.

 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

I dont actually.  It seems to mean everything and nothing, and is used in place of an argument or discussion. 

4
In reply to MG:

You can easily look it up if you really don’t know what it means. For my part, I have pointed out the major inconsistencies in your argument on a forum. That is my argument, however it seems disagreeing with you is just me looking for a fight.

Post edited at 14:26
2
 MG 18 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

You haven't,  you've just repeated what I said, paraphrased badly, with "gaslighting" thrown in as abuse.

If you really think every driver who passes too  close or whatever is doing it as a threat, I think you are nuts. 99/100 it is a combination of error, misunderstanding or carelessness I would say. This never ending battle some see, or even want, between drivers and cyclists is a myth, but quite a dangerous one.

7
In reply to MG:

Do you not understand the different between something being a threat and someone deliberately making a threat? You seem to be defending careless driving around more vulnerable road users.

The battle it seems is mainly perpetuated by car drivers, read the comments below any article reporting an incident or a new bit of cycling infrastructure. Remember as well, a cyclist is much more likely to be driver than a driver is a cyclist.

Post edited at 14:57
4
 peppermill 18 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> The real issue for me, which I think a lot of people who don't ride bikes don't really appreciate, is that of you do a dickish thing in a car to another car user, cut them up at a roundabout, overtake on a blind bend, whatever, people get there horns and get on with there day. Normal. If you have the same interaction between a motorist and a cyclist it's a different scenario with several tonnes of metal vs squishy flesh. It's very different, someone could have been easily killed. Both on the vid behaved badly, only one was in charge of a car which could have killed somebody.

> I just wish more road users would appreciate this and drive with more consideration.

100%. Plus I think you'll have more negative experiences on a bike if you commute through a city centre at rush hour, for obvious reasons.

I just hate the mentality that because the cyclist is the most vulnerable party they can do no wrong- e.g. an acquaintance I (used to.......) cycle with occasionally cut up the left hand side of a large van that had been signalling left for some time at a traffic light, whereas I and another knew the junction well and decided to drop into the queue of traffic and wait.

Acquaintance completely oblivious to the (Pretty obvious to the rest of us) risk, ignores our advice, hoons it along the cycle lane, van turns left when the lights change and knocks him off thankfully he's unhurt just fuming at something that to my mind, was completely his own fault.

Anyway, in the words of the great Malcom Tucker:

"Even cyclists hate cyclists"

Post edited at 18:24
1
 Toby_W 18 Sep 2021
In reply to peppermill:

Yes, a really foolish thing to do but the Highway Code is quite clear (doubly so if he was in a cycle lane) that the van driver is completely at fault for not checking his mirrors and blind spot.  This has been tested in court quite a few times now by filtering motorcycles.

More generally I f the courts were serious and people were worried about losing their driving licenses for bad driving people would improve their driving.  Take them off the road for a month at 6pts and don’t let them off on 12 with the excuse it will cost them their job.

I made a mistake overtaking a lorry as my junction was coming up on a duel carriageway, sped up to get past so I could pull in with plenty of space and time, speed awareness course for me!

I thought I might learn some really useful stuff about the more hidden meanings and warnings of some road markings (from the way I’ve heard people talk about them).  Instead I found myself sat there horrified that the other attendees did not even have the most basic knowledge of road safety and the Highway Code.

Add to this we’re all over worked, too busy, stressed and stuck on ever busier roads with angry people you do forget most people keep it together and drive pretty well despite the odd thing like this.

Toby

1
 peppermill 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Toby_W:

> Yes, a really foolish thing to do but the Highway Code is quite clear (doubly so if he was in a cycle lane) that the van driver is completely at fault for not checking his mirrors and blind spot.  This has been tested in court quite a few times now by filtering motorcycles.

Fair enough, I didn't realise this, the van driver was mortified. However, the timing was such that he probably had. I often think many cycle lanes encourage silly behaviour like this, eg cutting up the inside of an artic or whatever. Even if I'm technically in the right, fck that. 

Post edited at 19:07
In reply to MG:

Christ, I've just come back to this thread after a day out, I wish I hadn't.

#me too!

I'm not making it up!

I don't know what you want the x Ray's of my colleagues shattered bones? Someone accelerating at you in several tonnes of metal is bloody threatening I don't care if they mean it or not.

people yell expletives out of there window at me enough for it to feel normal. I don't get angry, I'm just resigned to it. I cycle bloody carefully as well thank you Neil Williams, if I didn't I would be dead. I mean I'm not sure how I can really avoid incidents like being ploughed into from behind whilst lit up like a Christmas tree in a cycle lane. Allthough no doubt it was my fault for having the audacity to be on the road on a bike.

Not that it matters but this is central Nottingham. 

Post edited at 19:39
2
 Toby_W 18 Sep 2021
In reply to peppermill:

You’re not wrong though, the death toll in London due this and lorries has been awful and I think they have changed the law on their mirrors and all the stickers warning cyclists about blind spots and not filtering past have appeared.

People are good though, we forget sometimes due to the minorities.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to peppermill:

I always used to tell my kids (when they were young) - don't argue with cars, because the car will always win regardless of who's in the right.

Although this was related to pedestrian/car interactions the same applies to bikes. There's very little benefit in being able to claim that you were in the right from a hospital bed.

The real problem is that most of our roads are just not suitable for mixing cars and bikes, and our city, urban and rural layouts make separate cycle ways difficult to fit in. I can't see any obvious answer to this fundamental problem, especially as the density of cars on the roads is still increasing.

 JimR 18 Sep 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

I’m a mild mannered non confrontational person , I’ve cycled about 7000 miles so far this year most of it solo and filed 9 police reports so far, 3 involving totally unprovoked verbal attacks simply for being a cyclist. The others being overly close passes. I have cameras on my bike which I put on after getting sick of having my life endangered by mr angry. Most mr angries are fat middle aged  men.

 Stichtplate 18 Sep 2021
In reply to JimR:

You've filed three police reports for unprovoked verbal attacks? Jesus. Round this way that's called "Average Tuesday afternoon married to Mrs Sticht".

and it's much worse by Friday.

6
 Andy Gamisou 19 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> You know what it means, I guess you probably know you are doing it. Saying it is gibberish just makes you look like an idiot.

What do you think it means?  I see it used a lot these days (especially in politics), and it seems to have changed its meaning to some people - much in the same way that "literally" has; or if not its meaning exactly, then the context and/or severity of the intended effect on the person it's aimed at. 

Personally, I don't think it should be used unless the person using it is familiar with the Ingrid Bergman movie from which the word originates (great movie - great actress!). 

(I'm inclined towards your views on the subject matter of the thread btw (based on my own cycling experiences), though that's not what my diversion is about)

Post edited at 03:13
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> What do you think it means?  I see it used a lot these days (especially in politics), and it seems to have changed its meaning to some people - much in the same way that "literally" has; or if not its meaning exactly, then the context and/or severity of the intended effect on the person it's aimed at. 

> Personally, I don't think it should be used unless the person using it is familiar with the Ingrid Bergman movie from which the word originates (great movie - great actress!). 

That is a fair question. Clearly I'm not acussing anyone of murder as part of a plot to steal jewels, however the term comes from the psychological manipulation by Charles Boyer's character in the film, where he wants Bergman's character to think that she is going mad so that he can send her to an asylum.

The accepted meaning of the verb appears to be someone persistently putting forward a false narrative with in the intention of making someone doubt their own perceptions. I wasn't the first person to use the term in this thread, but it did ring true. So, I was happy to repeat it, further comments reinforced that.

The poster in question's opener on this thread questioned the perceptions of another contributor, suggesting that they only encountered a perception of poor behaviour from motorists, because they were so aggressive on a bike. Another contribution shortly after riduculed another poster for for suggesting that they regularly encountered threatening behaviour and that around half of the regular commuters in his office had suffered serious accidents because of thoughtless driving. Another poster identified this as gas lighting (2 others, upon checking). I think this was a reasonable call. Personally at this point, I was questioning their lack of self awareness, both in terms of understanding threat whilst cycling, but also in terms of his incredulity.

When I later point out the inconsistencies in what he is saying and repeat the term gas lighting, also pointing out his claim that anyone on a bike who regularly witnesses poor behaviour from motorists is just looking for trouble, he makes the claim that my criticism of him is just me looking for trouble. Not to mention declaring the clear antithesis that a significant minority of motorists have towards cyclists is a myth, despite it being clearly demonstratable.

People saying "everything you think and see is wrong and you are clearly mad" isn't uncommon on the internet. When it is done contrary to evidence and primarily to undermine someone position, gas lighting seems like a reasonable description.

Post edited at 10:39
2
 Iamgregp 19 Sep 2021
In reply to Andy Gamisou:

> Personally, I don't think it should be used unless the person using it is familiar with the Ingrid Bergman movie from which the word originates (great movie - great actress!). 

I don’t like to nitpick, but if you’re going to be the arbiter of who can and can’t use the term, it originates from a 1938 Patrick Hamilton play called Gas Light. The Ingrid Bergman film was a later screen adaptation, actually the second time the play had been adapted.

If you’re going to show off about knowing where the term comes from, at least know where the term comes from.

1
 MG 19 Sep 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

So basically accept everything someone says without question, or you are committing the ultimate sin of "gaslighting". A very convenient means of preventing any challenge to a point of view 

8
In reply to MG:

> So basically accept everything someone says without question, or you are committing the ultimate sin of "gaslighting". A very convenient means of preventing any challenge to a point of view 

It is very clearly not that. 

1
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I don’t like to nitpick, but if you’re going to be the arbiter of who can and can’t use the term, it originates from a 1938 Patrick Hamilton play called Gas Light. The Ingrid Bergman film was a later screen adaptation, actually the second time the play had been adapted.

I don't think there can be much doubt about which side of this thread's argument Hamilton would have been on. Hard to argue with his lived experience, since he was facially disfigured after being run down by a drunk driver.

In reply to MG:

Weather you like it or not im sorry to admit you actually did very effectively gas light me, I was questioning whether I had actually made it all up, or was a terrible angry cyclist. I even made the effort of asking my wife (who cycles a lot more than me) and some friends, as well as recounted the various colleagues who had been in nasty accidents, which all, very sadly confirmed, the experiences I described were normal.

Anyway I found this thread pretty weird, I attempted to highlight (perhaps not very well), in a non confrontational way, how vulnerable cyclists are with a few examples of things that recently happened to me and have been called a liar and branded an aggressive fight starter. So like the angry motorists I sadly have to deal with, for my own sanity, I'm letting the thread race off into the distance in a puff of exhaust fumes leaving me behind, bewildered and a bit sad in its wake.

Post edited at 18:31
 Iamgregp 19 Sep 2021
In reply to Andy Clarke:

Yes, very good point!

 Yanis Nayu 20 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

Yes, I ducked-out because it was making me unhealthily angry to be told that my (in my opinion  righteous) anger at the way I get treated on the roads and then the way cyclists are discussed on here probably caused motorists to close-pass me etc. Gaslighting of the highest order. 

1
 MG 20 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I went for a nice bike ride. Somehow I managed to avoid getting in a fight, being threatened or being run over. Again.

9
 MG 20 Sep 2021
In reply to ebdon:

> Weather you like it or not im sorry to admit you actually did very effectively gas light me, I was questioning whether I had actually made it all up, or was a terrible angry cyclist. 

If questioning your position after a discussing is this nebulous "gaslighting", I'd say that's a good thing.

9
 Yanis Nayu 20 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

So pleased for you. 

1
 PaulJepson 20 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

Are you trying to provoke a reaction so you can go "you see? your temper is why you get in altercations with drivers!"? If so, it's quite transparent. 

Or does being a dick just come very naturally to you.

2
In reply to MG:

> If questioning your position after a discussing is this nebulous "gaslighting", I'd say that's a good thing.

Monumentally shitty response.

 MG 20 Sep 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Or does being a dick just come very naturally to you.

It's a gift.

6
 PaulJepson 20 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

The times I've been on the receiving end of threatening or abusive behaviour has actually nearly always been when drivers have wanted to get past me but I have taken the centre of the road to prevent any attempt at an un-safe overtake. There were a few places I'd do this on my regular commute; one was a 90 degree bend with a traffic island at both ends, another was a hill where I would get up to >20mph and there was a zebra crossing with a central island at the bottom and cars parked on the left, which I'd have to otherwise cut out of. 

If you are cycling regularly (during rush hour) and not getting abused, there is a pretty good chance that you are not cycling defensively enough.   

5
In reply to MG:

> If questioning your position after a discussing is this nebulous "gaslighting", I'd say that's a good thing.

For anyone who has experienced gaslighting in the context of abuse and coercive control,  reading someone say that it is a good thing is going to feel pretty shit. If you want to have a pop at ebdon or whoever else and call them a liar that seems rude but at least in some sense they chose to engage (I think you could base your same position on an assumption that they are truthful but an outlier, which would both be kinder and stands more chance of leading to a productive discussion).

But you seem to be going out of your way to wind people up en masse, and (I hope) not giving a second thought to who might be reading it. Gaslighting (or whatever name you want to give it) is a common tactic used by perpetrators of domestic abuse or prolonged sexual abuse. How about we therefore think twice before saying that it's a good thing, or that it's just invoked to win an argument? It does nothing to support your original point and just creates collateral damage by minimising and normalising the tools of abusers.

Post edited at 16:35
 MG 20 Sep 2021
In reply to Stuart Williams:

>  Gaslighting (or whatever name you want to give it) is a common tactic used by perpetrators of domestic abuse or prolonged sexual abuse. 

I don't accept someone's claims about being constantly threatened while cycling and now I am akin to domestic and sexual abusers!

The whole point of discussion and argument etc is to question other's and your own positions. If things I have said result in that, I do indeed hink that is good. I certainly have questioned my beliefs many times following discussion here and see that as positive. There is nothing remotely abusive about this.

And yes, while making sincere points, I do enjoy the frothing, self -righteous rage that cyclists always produce.

Post edited at 17:33
13
In reply to MG:

> I don't accept someone's claims about being constantly threatened while cycling and now I am akin to domestic and sexual abusers!

I didn’t say that, did I? I only said that I thought your approach to those claims was ruder than needed. You said you aren’t very familiar with the term ‘gaslighting’, so I then went on to give some context to what I was about to say. Don’t take that personally.

What I was saying is that you can make your point without suggesting that something intimately associated with various forms of abuse is a good thing. Feel free to disagree with people, or to refute that what you were doing fits the term of gaslighting. But I think that mocking the very idea of gaslighting was overstepping the mark and stands to really upset people who weren’t your intended target.

> The whole point of discussion and argument etc is to question other's and your own positions. If things I have said result in that, I do indeed hink that is good. I certainly have questioned my beliefs many times following discussion here and see that as positive. There is nothing remotely abusive about this.

See? I think that shows that you are able to make your point and disagree with what has been said without having to mock the idea of gaslighting. 

Post edited at 18:41
1
 GrahamD 21 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

> And yes, while making sincere points, I do enjoy the frothing, self -righteous rage that cyclists always produce.

Funny, the two, maybe, 5 year old on  their way to the school bus on their bikes this morning didn't appear to be frothing at all.  Funnily enough, neither did the retirees I was out with yesterday.

1
 MG 21 Sep 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Fair point - I agree cyclists seem calm and rational.  I should have said Cyclists.

5
In reply to MG:

You know, when you come into contact with someone who has concerns and worries, especially over their personal safety, you could, just a suggestion, not take enjoyment in making them feel even worse. Taking joy in other peoples suffering doesn't make you clever, it makes you a dick

4
 MG 21 Sep 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

Absolutely, which I why I don't do that.

7
In reply to MG:

> There is probably a  link  between your aggression and how you are (or perceive yourself to be) treated by other road users.

OK sure, you definitely aren't blaming people for their own safety issues.

I would outline the many times I've been deliberately punishment passed, the times I was knocked off my bike and the driver immediately left the scene, having a drink thrown over me while riding, having my ass slapped out of the window of a passing car, and on and on and on it goes. But I'm just making it up, or I did something to deserve all of it, I was being aggressive which is why I was then hit from behind, its obvious.

1
In reply to MG:

>> yes, while making sincere points, I do enjoy the frothing, self -righteous rage that cyclists always produce.

There, you enjoying other peoples suffering, right there

 Yanis Nayu 21 Sep 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

Quite, I’ve been wondering how I go from giving off angry vibes to drivers behind me (and therefore deserving of having a millimetre sliced off my elbow by their door mirror) to coming across serene and calm. Hippy outfit? CND motif on the back of my jersey? Buddhist monk’s robes?

I thought my anger only arose after drivers nearly killed me, or abused me, but the oracle that is MG tells me I’m wrong. 

In reply to MG:

> Absolutely, which I why I don't do that.

You could argue that you didn’t deliberately do that. Or you could until you came back on to the thread to revel in it.

In reply to PaulJepson:

> If you are cycling regularly (during rush hour) and not getting abused, there is a pretty good chance that you are not cycling defensively enough.   

I think that's over egging your pudding somewhat. I commute by bike, normally three times a week - about 100 kms a week. I ride defensively, partly that is choosing to ride either on slightly longer but quieter roads or off road for parts of my commute. But when I do ride on busier roads, I can't remember the last time I got shouted at, let alone really "abused". Where you commute (or just ride) surely is central to this. It might account for why MG's and Ebdon's experiences are so different from each others also?

 MG 21 Sep 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> >> yes, while making sincere points, I do enjoy the frothing, self -righteous rage that cyclists always produce.

> There, you enjoying other peoples suffering, right there

So in your mind frothing self-righteous=suffering?

No, I take no pleasure in people suffering.  I am however quite happy to poke fun at self-righteousness.  Hint: I am quite enjoying this exchange.

5
 MG 21 Sep 2021
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I thought my anger only arose after drivers nearly killed me, or abused me, but the oracle that is MG tells me I’m wrong. 

OK, what is your explanation for the wildly different experiences of cycling between those who it appears can't go ten yards without being assaulted, abused and knocked off, and those who manage to cycle years without significant problems?  It's not location or style in your view, so what is it?

6
In reply to MG:

These are people who have been made to feel like their lives were in danger and you are belittling that then using the anger of those people for your own enjoyment. The ONLY possible way you are not enjoying them suffering is if you think they are lying about their experiences. If they are not, they are suffering and you are enjoying that. Its impossible to have a proper discussion about the dangers of cycling because of prats like you basically calling us all liars. But you just carry on, I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut and accepting that I deserve to be put in mortal danger every time I have the temerity to leave my home, and you carry on enjoying that I feel like that.

2
 MG 21 Sep 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> The ONLY possible way you are not enjoying them suffering is if you think they are lying about their experiences. 

Lying is a bit strong - exaggerating their experience for effect I would say.  To take your phrase "...accepting that I deserve to be put in mortal danger every time I have the temerity to leave my home,...".  It;s just comical.

9
In reply to MG:

Well, I've had enough really close calls, and enough actual accidents that is literally how I feel. Every single time I go out some prick puts me in danger and you think its comical.

I'm out. 

In reply to ebdon:

> Yes cyclists can be dicks like everyone, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bicycle.

> I think I part of the problem with attitude in the UK is cycling is considered not normal whitch seems to make some people think cyclists deserve what they get and a fair game for abuse, this seems to be playing out in this thread.

My problem with attitude, being in the UK, is that I'm 'cking sick of being nearly run over on a near daily basis in London by shit cyclists flagrantly ignoring both the law and common sense. I'm also bored, when driving a car, of being expected to mitigate against their own inability to not put themselves in patently dangerous positions (queueing to go straight on down the left of vehicles in a 'left turn only' lane? Really!?)

Just needed to pick up on that comment, because it's irrelevant how hard it is to kill someone with a bicycle; if you run me over, I'm still going to be really quite miffed at best.

In reply to TobyA:

> I think that's over egging your pudding somewhat. I commute by bike, normally three times a week - about 100 kms a week. I ride defensively, partly that is choosing to ride either on slightly longer but quieter roads or off road for parts of my commute. But when I do ride on busier roads, I can't remember the last time I got shouted at, let alone really "abused". Where you commute (or just ride) surely is central to this. It might account for why MG's and Ebdon's experiences are so different from each others also?

As a counterpoint, I was shouted at to "get the f*** back left you c***" a couple of commutes ago, while on the right lane turning right just outside Nottingham station. It's two lanes per direction and there was no other traffic at that point. I was not blocking him (the left lane was clear), I was just minding my own business. He undertook, beeped, stopped in front of me and started swearing.

This bullshit that you have to be doing something wrong for that to happen is just that, bullshit. It depends on where you are and who you meet. I haven't had problems in the Peak and I don't commute in Nottingham as much as ebdon but it's very easy to imagine creatures like that being encountered a lot in the city.

 Yanis Nayu 21 Sep 2021
In reply to MG:

You really are a piece of work. I’m out. You get get your sad kicks winding someone else up. 

2

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...