Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

taker920

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Hope he leathers you so hard your mum wonders why a pizza is crying at the door asking to be let in.

If he'd stuck around long enough the other day he would have had his chance :rotfl:

I'm sure there are responsible cyclist's out there somewhere, they're just few and far between with most having a giant chip on their shoulder

Jeff_Bridges_hair

custardy wrote: »

its being highlighted as some rational that it absolves all drivers of any duty of care or simple manners around cyclists.
thats why

I never said anything of the sort. Im giving it also as an example of where some cyclist just like some car drivers are ruthless and reckless and this should not be forgotten.

Dont get confused between what you thought i said or implied compared to what I actually said.

Freddie_Snowbits

Azari wrote: »

What hope is there for anyone who is so clueless about road usage that he thinks it appropriate to invoke a law of combat

It is about arriving safely, not DEAD

Azari wrote: »

Hmm, someone else who is incapable of interpreting perfectly clear evidence.

The first act of an aggressive nature came from the cyclist in his words, hurling abuse at the van driver.

Better to have stepped back, rather than confornt an object that is bigger than you. This shouting occurred at 51 seconds in the film.

Azari wrote: »

In the real world you have to be behind someone to attempt to 'under cut' them. The cyclist was never behind the van.

Why did he think to rush alongside the van, instead of, as has been pointed out, allow the van to get in fornt of him safely. No, the cyclist continued and then hurled abuse at the van driver first.

Azari wrote: »

:rotfl: Talk about grabbing at straws.

That would have been down to the order in which the indictments were listed. He got five points on his licence!

The puiblic order offence attacts a greater punishment, and remains on the record. the points are wiped off in 5 years.

Azari wrote: »

Quite amazing given your, shall we say, 'unusual' interpretation of traffic law and your inability to properly understand the clip shown.

OTOH there are people who drink and drive for decades and get away with it so I suppose it's not too surprising.

So, here cometh the Part Time Sleeping Policeman who thinks that by reducing speed, deaths would be reduced. As for drink driving, that is a measurable offence, and has in some circumstances rid us of some dangerous driving, but not rid us of deaths by it. As for cycling after drinking, these are not recorded.

Freddie_Snowbits

Remind me to bump this post the week before the clocks go back in October. It is normal in my calendar to tell my Beavers about lights, Hi Vis Jackets and be seen when either walking or cycling home from school. It will remind me of idiot cyclists who do not, as demonstrated in the film by the so called Cecil B, who thinks it is wise not to wear a jacket like this and hurl abuse, [STRIKE]undertake[/STRIKE] , move agressively alongside a larger more inanminate object in an act just out of a Tom and jerry cartoon and hope to come off unscathed.

custardy

act of aggression.
you mean making the van driver aware of his presence in the absence of a horn and road manners/sense from the van driver?

Freddie_Snowbits

custardy wrote: »

act of aggression.
you mean making the van driver aware of his presence in the absence of a horn and road manners/sense from the van driver?

Is that in absence of a Bell?

custardy

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Is that in absence of a Bell?

you think one of those little weedy bells would have caught that van drivers attention.
I dont know about you,but when a vehicle is trying to force me off the road,
it seems prudent to keep my hands by the steering and braking bits

Freddie_Snowbits

custardy wrote: »

you think one of those little weedy bells would have caught that van drivers attention.
I dont know about you,but when a vehicle is trying to force me off the road,
it seems prudent to keep my hands by the steering and braking bits

No, but removing oneself from the threat (VAN) would not have resulted in Cycling Twit being smacked. I have explained this earlier, as the rule of combat.

Freddie_Snowbits

Here are some examples of good cycling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ED46VXxswk
Here is one for proof that things made of metal can damage the unprotected.
Note the red light and pavement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZdN4pattLY
This is american, but take your own view (Note the cyclists are agressive to start off with)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF7uY9ydMYc
Some are invincble or lucky
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mQyAUmnuT4
Oh, and is this Helmut Cam Kid? Goes through a red light. Note he is as agressive as the one on the BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQXB_Viw22k
And of course there are ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiWjff5Smhg

esuhl

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I reiterate the first law of combat. If you are not in a position to win, back out gracefully.

Anyone who thinks that a road journey is a form of combat should probably be locked up for everyone's safety.