Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

Freddie_Snowbits

esuhl wrote: »

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

After 6 yes, read my sig.

Combat in reference to the aggression shown by the cyclist when not in a position of strength. The van is heavy and made of metal, and hence, the cyclist should be more aware of their situation and the damage that can be done to themselves. Why do lorries say, 'If you can't see my mirrors, I cannot see you'

Also, the Van driver should be more aware nof otehr road users, but as the video shows, the aggressive nature of the cyclist in the 51 second aggrevated the situation, when he should had made the gracefull exit, whether he was right or wrong, better that then the Helmut Kids film being used by the Coroner.

esuhl

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

After 6 yes, read my sig.

"After 6 yes"...? Sorry - I don't understand... I've turned off signatures because they're usually tediously banal. (No offence - I'm sure yours is quite informative.)

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Combat in reference to the aggression shown by the cyclist when not in a position of strength. The van is heavy and made of metal, and hence, the cyclist should be more aware of their situation and the damage that can be done to themselves.

I was just maing a general point. I haven't seen the video, so can't comment on this specific case. Surely the cyclist either has a right of way and is riding safely or they're cycling recklessly/dangerously. Since cyclists are never in a position of strength compared to most other road users, are you suggesting that cyclists ought to defer to other traffic? If you're just saying that cyclists should ride "defensively", then I quite agree. Of course motor vehicles should be driven defensively too.

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Why do lorries say, 'If you can't see my mirrors, I cannot see you'

I guess it's a reminder to be aware of a driver's blind spot and not to linger in that spot. It's certainly not a challenge to a duel, or an indication of military combat.

If people see road use as a form of combat, then I don't think they're in the right frame of mind to travel safely.

anotherbaldrick

esuhl wrote: »

I haven't seen the video





.

The link to the video is at post No 1

Azari

esuhl wrote: »

I was just maing a general point. I haven't seen the video, so can't comment on this specific case. Surely the cyclist either has a right of way and is riding safely or they're cycling recklessly/dangerously.

In the case of the event in question a van starts to overtake the cyclist and, before he is half way past swerves sideways an knocks the cyclist off.

Various petrol heads have waded in with some of the most ludicrous reasons why the cyclist is to blame or is partly to blame including that the cyclist was 'under cutting' the van[1] and that the cyclist should have been wearing high vis clothing (in broad daylight).

[1] Undercutting is overtaking on the left hand side - something of which the cyclist could not possibly have been guilty because he was at no point behind the van until it knocked him off!

Azari

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Combat in reference to the aggression shown by the cyclist when not in a position of strength. The van is heavy and made of metal, and hence, the cyclist should be more aware of their situation and the damage that can be done to themselves. Why do lorries say, 'If you can't see my mirrors, I cannot see you'

Also, the Van driver should be more aware nof otehr road users, but as the video shows, the aggressive nature of the cyclist in the 51 second aggrevated the situation, when he should had made the gracefull exit, whether he was right or wrong, better that then the Helmut Kids film being used by the Coroner.

Your attitude is typical of that of bullies.

Whatever the bully does the bullied is in the wrong unless he immediately does whatever the bully wants him to do.

Fortunately, with new technology like this coming on line you will not find it so easy to get away with putting your bully friendly ideas into practice.

rustyboy21

Azari wrote: »

Your attitude is typical of that of bullies.

Whatever the bully does the bullied is in the wrong unless he immediately does whatever the bully wants him to do.

Fortunately, with new technology like this coming on line you will not find it so easy to get away with putting your bully friendly ideas into practice.

wondered when the bully card was going to be pulled.

Here is a scenario for you with multiple choice answers after.

you are driving along a single carriageway road. You are a cyclist and it is pouring with rain, 4.30pm and road traffic is heavy. You are only lit by an LED red lamp at the rear, you do not have any high viz gear on and your coat is covering up your lamp.

There is a car infront of you, which is going slow. You attempt to overtake him. At the same time a 40 tonne HGV of foreign plate also decides to overtake said car. He thinks he is clear due to no sight of said cyclist in the poor light which prevails. The car you are trying to overtake decides to speed up. This means you are now stuck between both vehicles

Do You....

a. slam on the brakes of your bike, to avoid a collision inbetween the car and the hgv.

b. decide to accelarate thinking you can overtake both vehicles.

c. carry on as before, shouting expletives at both parties, even though they cannot hear you due to the heavy rain and cannot see you either.

d. You decide to mount the kerb, knock an elderley person over and shout expletives at them because they were in the way. You do not stop after knocking said person over.

e. stay as you are, no corrective action taken, so if you get hit you can blame the other party, after all... ''were there is a blame there is a claim''

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

wondered when the bully card was going to be pulled.

Not a long shot when someone was promoting the 'always let the bully win' option.

Kudos to you for spotting it, though.

Here is a scenario for you with multiple choice answers after.
you are driving along a single carriageway road. You are a cyclist and it is pouring with rain, 4.30pm and road traffic is heavy. You are only lit by an LED red lamp at the rear, you do not have any high viz gear on and your coat is covering up your lamp.
There is a car infront of you, which is going slow. You attempt to overtake him. At the same time a 40 tonne HGV of foreign plate also decides to overtake said car. He thinks he is clear due to no sight of said cyclist in the poor light which prevails. The car you are trying to overtake decides to speed up. This means you are now stuck between both vehicles
Do You....
a. slam on the brakes of your bike, to avoid a collision inbetween the car and the hgv.
b. decide to accelarate thinking you can overtake both vehicles.
c. carry on as before, shouting expletives at both parties, even though they cannot hear you due to the heavy rain and cannot see you either.
d. You decide to mount the kerb, knock an elderley person over and shout expletives at them because they were in the way. You do not stop after knocking said person over.
e. stay as you are, no corrective action taken, so if you get hit you can blame the other party, after all... ''were there is a blame there is a claim''

I'm not going to start playing your silly little games because that is not even remotely like what happened in the clip.

rustyboy21

I'm not going to start playing your silly little games because that is not even remotely like what happened in the clip. [/QUOTE]

It is a general question to a so called responsible cyclist, or anyone out there. I have made my position clear at what I would do as a car driver if met by a similar scenario, which is if met with an oncoming accident, that I would slow down and do anything that was humanly possible to avoid said accident.

All you seem to be saying is that the van driver got all he deserved and the cyclist didn't do anything wrong ( which I have said I agree with)

What I am asking though is that if you were in the same situation, actually riding that bike and came accross the scenario , what would you do, answers as the multiple choice ones as listed below.

For ease of answer I have repeated the scenario again....

you are driving along a single carriageway road. You are a cyclist and it is pouring with rain, 4.30pm and road traffic is heavy. You are only lit by an LED red lamp at the rear, you do not have any high viz gear on and your coat is covering up your lamp.

There is a car infront of you, which is going slow. You attempt to overtake him. At the same time a 40 tonne HGV of foreign plate also decides to overtake said car. He thinks he is clear due to no sight of said cyclist in the poor light which prevails. The car you are trying to overtake decides to speed up. This means you are now stuck between both vehicles

Do You....

a. slam on the brakes of your bike, to avoid a collision inbetween the car and the hgv.

b. decide to accelarate thinking you can overtake both vehicles.

c. carry on as before, shouting expletives at both parties, even though they cannot hear you due to the heavy rain and cannot see you either.

d. You decide to mount the kerb, knock an elderley person over and shout expletives at them because they were in the way. You do not stop after knocking said person over.

e. stay as you are, no corrective action taken, so if you get hit you can blame the other party, after all... ''were there is a blame there is a claim''

Answers on a post card or a sealed down envelope and sent to.......

Freddie_Snowbits

Oh, and after doing Chinese New Year with my troop, I came back to turn into my estate to see the unlit cyclist, without hi vis regalia, thunder along the well marked cycle track pass through the give way at the road edge oblivious to me in the centre refuge, lights on and indicating right. Do you think I attempted to unseat him? Or let his ignorantly weave his way on?

Fortunately I have eyes that alert me to their incensing ways.

The next driver may not even feel a bump as they ...

As for the bully, perchance the cyclist on the pavement racing through pedestrians is the more ignorant of the spieces.

Tis a shame that those with no defence trump up the bully card without aforethought.

Alas to answer Azari and the defenders of new technologies. Only really of use in the coroners court to decide negligence.

As for the note of swerving by the van, this happened after the Darum Cowboy Outrider, aka as Helmut Kid, had ridden roughshod broadside of the van plying a tirade of aggressive abuse, rather than, as I did tonight when turning right, stayed safe and clear of the danger. The danger tonight that was oblivious to the cyclist, as are the give way notices on the cycle lane.

I await the response in time, but I have to go shooting now, wonder what I'll bag!

Freddie_Snowbits

Rusty, the answer the responsible cyclist will give, is on the film shown in the coroners court!