Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

rustyboy21

Azari wrote: »

I think we've already established that you are from 'oop North' whereas I'm a 'soft Southern git' which may explain the difference in our perceptions here. (Although, obviously I do see people with inadequate clothing/equipment riding like morons going for their Darwin awards.)

Perhaps you are correct.


The scenario is so different as to make it pointless. (pouring with rain, rear light, long coat - you've just tailored the scenario to get the result you want.) I would never be involved in that scenario in the first place because if I needed a rear light I would not ride with it obscured. Ever.

Correct, however I was trying to point out, as has been seen on many occasions, the idiocity of some cyclists, who do not adequetly prepare themselves to what is in effect '' battle out on the roads''. However there are some similarities in the scenario, which are whether you slow down, keep your speed or accelerate out of danger.

And yet if he had been in a car and sounded his horn at someone getting to close it would not even have warranted a mention.

If he took defensive action, ie slow down, he did not need to shout out


I wish you would look at what actually happened rather than keep spouting nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is not off topic, the topic is about cycling and a new gadget developed, the whole course of this thread has been on topic, no one has been talking about bananas, which would obviously be off topic.

There were two quite separate incidents in that clip.

In the first the van driver got far too close going around a bend and moved to the right when the cyclist caught his attention. I very much doubt the driver would have got into any trouble for that.

The cyclist then progresses quite safely.

The van driver then begins another overtaking maneuver where he has adequate room to complete the maneuver safely but, before he is even half way past the cyclist, swerves to the left when he should have been moving to the right to safely pass the parked car ahead.

There is no way the cyclist could have anticipated that and your assertion that he should have slowed down merely shows that you have virtually no road sense.

mostly correct,and I agree with most of it, never havent, however I still state that if he was acutely aware of the situation, for the sake of his own life, he would/should have took defensive action and got out of harms way, which looking at the footage, wasn't willing to do, as he 'may' have been on an agenda to get some footage to show off his camera, like som many others on you tube have done. So many of them seem staged it is unreal.


Which gave him 5 points on his licence which means he's 5 point nearer to a ban the next time he does something stupid.

Incorrect, he got 5 points on his licence for driving without due care and attention. Agressive behaviour does not carry points as it is a criminal matter, which stays on his police record for life, points come off after 5/6 years.



I think the courts are in a much better position to ascertain what is and is not admissible evidence than someone who has seen a clip on a news sight and has already shown a breathtaking ability to try and shift blame from where it clearly belongs onto an innocent party.

Let's be honest, your whole participation in this thread has been one huge, increasingly lame, attempt to shift the blame from the driver who was found guilty in a court of law to the cyclist who was found guilty of nothing.

Your continued attempts to try and maintain that any road user must anticipate someone randomly swerving to the left is, frankly, pathetic.

For the courts, and this more than likely was a magistrates court, not crown, have more than likely never seen such footage, it may have been novel to them and it may have helped them come to their conclusion. I stand by my view that , i f the van driver hadn't been so agressive, this wouldnt have even got to court, the driver would have most probably just got a fixed penalty notice and this story wouldn't have even been mentioned on any news at all.

I have never said the cyclist was at fault, something you are not prepared to acknowledge, all I have said though is that looking at the footage, and in hindsight, wouldn't it have been better for the cyclist, or any cyclist in fact, when faced with such a situation, to take aversive action?

I have attempted throughout this thread to show that, if cyclists protected themselves better , the accident rate would drop. Answer me this, if High viz gear wasn't so important on our roads, Why do Lollipop ladies, road workers, police, Paramedics etc wear them then? Why is it also a legal requirement in countries around the world to carry one and wear one sometimes in your car. I even have to wear mine when I go into the local builders merchants otherwise I am escorted off the premises !

I feel that the law should be changed, so Cyclists are required to wear them at all times, and if found not doing so, they have their bikes seized, same goes for no lights, incorrect tyre pressures etc. What is good for car drivers should be good for cyclists.

You are only carrying on this farce, due to only having approx 2 people supporting you, the majority are not agreeing with you at all.

I am tired of all your slagging off of anyone who dares speak up against what you believe. I have already said that you are not prepared to listen and have a reasoned debate over points other people have raised and I suggest that it is in fact YOU who would argue that black is white. You cannot keep a thread on topic as you want as it would not be a discussion thread then, you have to have another point of view, something you dont want to have. Maybe it's a North/ South divide thing I do not know, but we dont all smoke pipes and eat hotpot up hear you know ( well not all of us anyway !):D

You may be happy to know I have tired of arguing with you, so unless you have any defamatory remarks to make to me, This will be my last post on this thread.

Goodbye and safe cycling

Freddie_Snowbits

Azari wrote: »

And yet if he had been in a car and sounded his horn at someone getting to close it would not even have warranted a mention.

If the other combatant has time to sound their horn, or as Helmut Kid did, scream nonesense, then that combatant had time to extract themselves from the situation. Helmut Kid chose not to.

Azari wrote: »

There were two quite separate incidents in that clip.

In the first the van driver got far too close going around a bend and moved to the right when the cyclist caught his attention. I very much doubt the driver would have got into any trouble for that.

The cyclist then progresses quite safely.

Fair enough.

Azari wrote: »

The van driver then begins another overtaking maneuver where he has adequate room to complete the maneuver safely but, before he is even half way past the cyclist, swerves to the left when he should have been moving to the right to safely pass the parked car ahead.

There is no way the cyclist could have anticipated that and your assertion that he should have slowed down merely shows that you have virtually no road sense.

I fear that because Helmut Kid's sense of invincibility may have deluded his judgement, when he should have been aware of the skill level of the van driver, as clearly demonstrated to him just (according to his clip) seconds earlier. My approach would be steer clear of the < insert appropriate wording here > Freddie is yellowed until ????

Azari wrote: »

I think the courts are in a much better position to ascertain what is and is not admissible evidence than someone who has seen a clip on a news sight and has already shown a breathtaking ability to try and shift blame from where it clearly belongs onto an innocent party.

Again, in the Coroner's Court, would only serve to aportion blame.

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

For the courts, and this more than likely was a magistrates court, not crown, have more than likely never seen such footage, it may have been novel to them and it may have helped them come to their conclusion. I stand by my view that , i f the van driver hadn't been so agressive, this wouldnt have even got to court, the driver would have most probably just got a fixed penalty notice and this story wouldn't have even been mentioned on any news at all.

I just love the way that petrol heads will grasp at any straw to try and spin things their own way.

I suppose if it had been a crown court you would have been trying to dismiss the verdict on the basis that it was not the court of appeal.

For your information, all magistrates courts have a legally qualified officer who is able to give the bench professional guidance on what evidence is and is not admissible.

I have never said the cyclist was at fault, something you are not prepared to acknowledge, all I have said though is that looking at the footage, and in hindsight, wouldn't it have been better for the cyclist, or any cyclist in fact, when faced with such a situation, to take aversive action?

You never come right out with it, instead relying on sly comments designed to indicate that without ever saying so.

I have attempted throughout this thread to show that, if cyclists protected themselves better , the accident rate would drop.

And you may well have a point in many circumstances. It's just your continued attachment of this assertion to a situation where it is entirely irrelevant (broad daylight and the van driver had already pulled out to overtake the cyclist thus clearly knowing he was there) that makes it seem tendentious.

I feel that the law should be changed, so Cyclists are required to wear them at all times, and if found not doing so, they have their bikes seized, same goes for no lights, incorrect tyre pressures etc. What is good for car drivers should be good for cyclists.

Dream on.

You are only carrying on this farce, due to only having approx 2 people supporting you, the majority are not agreeing with you at all.

:rotfl: Ah, the old argumentum ad numerum fallacy!

Just because you can find several people to support you argument it must right.

Fortunatley the people who matter; the police, the CPS and the court all seem to agree with me.

I am tired of all your slagging off of anyone who dares speak up against what you believe. I have already said that you are not prepared to listen and have a reasoned debate over points other people have raised and I suggest that it is in fact YOU who would argue that black is white.

And I'm tired of your tedious, tendentious, attempts to deflect the blame for a very straightforward case of driver misbehaviour onto the victim.

You are the one who has ignored, again and again and again the very clear fact that the driver swerved to the left for no reason and this is what caused the incident. You also ignore the very clear fact that there was no way the cyclist could have anticipate the swerve to the left.

You ignore these two points despite the fact that they have been stated many times, preferring to pretend they do not exist and instead witter on incessantly about irrelevancies such as the cyclist shouting in a previous incident and high visibility clothing in an incident where it is clearly not applicable.

You may be happy to know I have tired of arguing with you

I think, truth to tell, that it's more a case that even you are becoming embarrassed at having to continually ignore the unpredictable and unnecessary swerve to the left that caused the incident in order to continue your campaign. That and the fact that the police, CPS and court all evidently disagree with you.

adouglasmhor

rustyboy21 wrote: »

I feel that the law should be changed, so Cyclists are required to wear them at all times, and if found not doing so, they have their bikes seized, same goes for no lights, incorrect tyre pressures etc. What is good for car drivers should be good for cyclists.

Never heard of a car being impounded for wrong tyre pressures or even for a non working light TBH. Police must be right tartars where you live.

rustyboy21

dream on Big boy !

I am neither embarrased or do not have any further to say.

As already stated, you are just carrying on with the farce, as you do not have the intelligence to admit that there is another side to this situation.

Systematically throughout a lot of your posts you have goaded people into taking agressive response. I feel that i do not need to ' lower myself ' to the level. Dont know whether it is short man syndrome or what possibly ''I am a southerner, so I am always right'' may be a better analysis, but you act like a troll, trying to get a rise out of anyone, who responds.

I can carry on arguing with you til the end of times, don't worry about that, but it seems that is what you want. If you want me too I will, however I normally take the road of extinguishing the flames of a normally ignorant and arrogant person, by ignoring them, which I feel should be the case with you.

My decision to stop posting on here is due to wanting the thread to dissapear down the list, so therefore taking the wind out of your sails.

cheers buddy ! :beer:

rustyboy21

BTW look at the video again and view it a number of times.

The road is a very narrow single lane road, with a zebra crossing. The cyclist admits that the van driver passed him safely on the first incident. The cyclist pulls out prematurely to overtake parked cars, around 55 seconds. The van driver is met with a narrow road, with zebra markings, he had already initiated his overtake safely as cyclist admits, but as he was on the other side of the road, needed to get over, the cyclist has not adjusted his actions to accomodate him and there are also speed bumps on the road in sets of 3, which are designed so you have to pass inbetween them in order to not wreck your car/van and are deliberately made to slow you down. The van slows down, but not the cyclist.

Considering a magistrates courts hearings last for approx 10 minutes, I would suggest that the only reason why this incident ended with the driver being at fault, was due to his aggressive attitude, so therefore any reasonable defense by him, wouldn't have been acknowledged by the magistrates

All the above is on my feelings of the case. Unless you can substantiate with actual court records of what went on in the hearing, I feel that the sentence imposed was harsh as I feel that the cyclist was also NOW to blame. Magistrates do get things wrong you know.

There said it, was holding out for the cyclist until watching the footage about 6 times, something the courts wouldn't have done.

If I was the van driver, I would ask for an appeal on these grounds, he has been harshly treated as now ( to me) that has been the case.


Let the argument commence !:D:rotfl:

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

I am neither embarrased

That is indicative of your somewhat loose grasp of reality.

or do not have any further to say.

So you keep saying.

As already stated, you are just carrying on with the farce, as you do not have the intelligence to admit that there is another side to this situation.

On the contrary, I'm carrying on with this farce because your link to reality is so tenuous that you repeatedly ignore the only salient fact in this case:

The van driver swerved to the left and knocked the cyclist off his bike when there was absolutely no reason for him not to continue on his course in order to pass the parked car ahead.

You ignore this point time and time and time again. It's as if no one has ever mentioned it and you have too little road sense to see it for yourself.

Systematically throughout a lot of your posts you have goaded people into taking agressive response.

This seems to be a repeated factor in you perverted world view: If someone acts aggressively it is someone else's fault.

Why don't you grow up and start taking responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to blame others.

Dont know whether it is short man syndrome

Somewhat unlikely at 6' 2"

or what possibly ''I am a southerner, so I am always right'' may be a better analysis, but you act like a troll, trying to get a rise out of anyone, who responds.

If you consider calmly and patiently repeating the facts to someone who will not even acknowledge they have been stated - it's not as if you even try to make a case against them, you simply pretend they don't exist - to be trolling, then I doubt anyone will change your mind.

You might note, however, that when one side of a discussion continually ignores the major point of their opposition, favouring a continued stream of irrelevancies, it is more usual for them to be considered the troll.

I can carry on arguing with you til the end of times, don't worry about If you want me too I will

Well, make up your mind. A moment ago you said: "or do not have any further to say."

however I normally take the road of extinguishing the flames of a normally ignorant and arrogant person, by ignoring them, which I feel should be the case with you.

You are the one who is continually ignoring the facts as clearly shown in the video.

It's neither ignorant nor arrogant to insist that they be acknowledged. Something you clearly will not do because it to do so would instantly demolish your ridiculous argument.

My decision to stop posting on here is due to wanting the thread to dissapear down the list

Yeah, right.

Freddie_Snowbits

[QUOTE=Azari;40868636The van driver swerved to the left and knocked the cyclist off his bike when there was absolutely no reason for him not to continue on his course in order to pass the parked car ahead.

You ignore this point time and time and time again. It's as if no one has ever mentioned it and you have too little road sense to see it for yourself.[/QUOTE]
Noted before

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

I fear that because Helmut Kid's sense of invincibility may have deluded his judgement, when he should have been aware of the skill level of the van driver, as clearly demonstrated to him just (according to his clip) seconds earlier. My approach would be steer clear of the < insert appropriate wording here > Freddie is yellowed until ????

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

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

:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T
No further questions, M'Lud

rustyboy21

Azari wrote: »

That is indicative of your somewhat loose grasp of reality.

Never not lived in the real world buddy


So you keep saying.

???????????

On the contrary, I'm carrying on with this farce because your link to reality is so tenuous that you repeatedly ignore the only salient fact in this case:

Reality is a state of mind, something which you dont seem to grasp
The van driver swerved to the left and knocked the cyclist off his bike when there was absolutely no reason for him not to continue on his course in order to pass the parked car ahead.


He didnt knock the cyclist off the bike, factual error on your behalf, he knocked into him. If he had been knocked off it, it would be shown on the camera !

You ignore this point time and time and time again. It's as if no one has ever mentioned it and you have too little road sense to see it for yourself.


As an advanced driving instructor for 6 years and also passed the police defensive driving course ran by Lancs police a while back, I find this unlikely


This seems to be a repeated factor in you perverted world view: If someone acts aggressively it is someone else's fault.

There is nothing perverse about me, except possibly my sex life !:p

Why don't you grow up and start taking responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to blame others.

If I am to blame, I take the blame unlike some othewrs on here, I also apologise if I get things wrong, don't just carrying on harping on about it


Somewhat unlikely at 6' 2"

Big boy aren't ya !;)



If you consider calmly and patiently repeating the facts to someone who will not even acknowledge they have been stated - it's not as if you even try to make a case against them, you simply pretend they don't exist - to be trolling, then I doubt anyone will change your mind.

Always acknowledged your facts when they are correct

You might note, however, that when one side of a discussion continually ignores the major point of their opposition, favouring a continued stream of irrelevancies, it is more usual for them to be considered the troll.

Not when said OP is trying to get a rise out of other people



Well, make up your mind. A moment ago you said: "or do not have any further to say."

I am having fun ! I enjoy the banter, with you, lets say it is trying to bridge that North/South divide. Plus am coming down south later in year, wondered whether you had a spare room I could use ?


You are the one who is continually ignoring the facts as clearly shown in the video.

Look at the video again and again and see what actually happened

It's neither ignorant nor arrogant to insist that they be acknowledged. Something you clearly will not do because it to do so would instantly demolish your ridiculous argument.

OOOPS ! :rotfl:



Yeah, right.

Speak soon !

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

The road is a very narrow single lane road, with a zebra crossing. The cyclist admits that the van driver passed him safely on the first incident.

Well, he managed to get past without an actual collision!

You clearly drive differently but I consider overtaking someone at a junction when you are about to turn left to be extraordinarily bad driving.

The cyclist pulls out prematurely to overtake parked cars, around 55 seconds.

The cyclist pulls out as part of the traffic stream.

The van driver is met with a narrow road, with zebra markings, he had already initiated his overtake safely

I'm not surprised that you are not aware of this as your driving skills are highly suspect but it is illegal to overtake on a pedestrain crossing or whilst withing the zig-zag markings on either side.

as cyclist admits, to get over, the cyclist has not adjusted his actions to accomodate him and there are also speed bumps on the road in sets of 3, which are designed so you have to pass inbetween them in order to not wreck your car/van and are deliberately made to slow you down. The van slows down, but not the cyclist.

That is little more than gibberish but if you are suggesting that starting an overtaking maneuver when you cannot see that the road ahead is clear for sufficient distance to allow you to safely complete the maneuver is in some way a good excuse for sideswiping another road user you are even dafter than I previously thought!

Considering a magistrates courts hearings last for approx 10 minutes, I would suggest that the only reason why this incident ended with the driver being at fault, was due to his aggressive attitude, so therefore any reasonable defense by him, wouldn't have been acknowledged by the magistrates

:rotfl: Any reasonable defence to overtaking on a pedestrian crossing without allowing enough room to safely pass without swerving sideways and colliding with another road user? You must be living in cloud cuckoo land.

All the above is on my feelings of the case. Unless you can substantiate with actual court records of what went on in the hearing, I feel that the sentence imposed was harsh as I feel that the cyclist was also NOW to blame. Magistrates do get things wrong you know.

Your feelings aren't really relevant, though, are they?

You see a small part of the evidence, demonstrate conclusively that you do not have the capacity to interpret it and then question the abilities of those who were charged with doing so with far better information than you.

It was not just the magistrates. For the case to come to court the police and, independently, the CPS, would have reviewed the evidence and, believing there was a good chance of conviction, allowed it to come to trial.

There said it, was holding out for the cyclist until watching the footage about 6 times, something the courts wouldn't have done.

You do not know that. Your just p**sing in the wind.

If I was the van driver, I would ask for an appeal on these grounds, he has been harshly treated as now ( to me) that has been the case.

Let's hope he does.

He'd be laughed out of court and could have his penalty increased.