Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

Heliflyguy

Have to agree with rustyboy the cyclist did nothing to avoid the situation/confrontation (although the van driver was at fault), isnt good driving/riding about avoiding such incidents.

Mind you the cyclist was probably out to prove a point and would happily put himself at risk to do it.

adouglasmhor

gregg1 wrote: »

Maybe - but you dont have any form of registration plates which identify you on your bikes. And therein lies the problem. Cyclists know they can get away with breaking the law and cycling dangerously because, unlike car drivers, they cannot be identified !!!

They can be identified if they get caught by the police doing something that breaks the law.

Azari

dizziblonde wrote: »

How dare we criticize ANY cyclists for they are without stain!!!!

How about the prat who took my wing mirror off cycling on the pavements.... how about the pillocks who like the country roads near here at dusk wearing black coats and no lights.

There are bad motorists, but there are also some shockingly bad cyclists who seem to think that lycra renders them with superpowers and invincibility (I guess it sort of worked for Superman but he had his pants on the outside of his tights) and yes, they deserve to be called out on THEIR antics as well as motorists.

Being abusive to everyone who's dared mention cyclists aren't perfect REALLY helps your cause and doesn't at all make you look like a lycra-clad lout.

And ... breathe ...

Azari

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Have to agree with rustyboy the cyclist did nothing to avoid the situation/confrontation (although the van driver was at fault), isnt good driving/riding about avoiding such incidents.

So what you are saying is that if anyone overtakes you you should immediately slow down or stop in case the person overtaking is such an appalling driver that they sideswipe you instead of abandoning an unsafe maneuver? A novel approach to road use.

But I'm afraid it's that sort of attitude that allows the bullies of this life to win by abusing the rights of others.

Mind you the cyclist was probably out to prove a point and would happily put himself at risk to do it.

He was only at risk because the van driver made a fundamentally flawed decision and moved sideways into road space that was already occupied by another vehicle.

If every road user drove in a way that assumed an overtaking driver was going to do that the roads would descend into chaos because the only response to seeing someone start to overtake you would be to slow down or stop.

rustyboy21

From what you say above it seems that you have the fairly common 'motorist's mindset' where you apply completely different rules to one type of vehicle than you would apply to another.

Are the rules of the road: If you wish to overtake but cannot do so safely because your vehicle is not fast enough, go ahead anyway and assume the vehicle you are overtaking will brake to allow you to force your way in.?

What would be your view if you were driving a car and someone in an underpowered vehicle started to attempt an overtaking maneuverer and then side swiped you because he could not complete it?

Would you apportion some of the blame on yourself for not stopping to let him bully his way in?

I view all road users in the same light, They are just another person using the road.

Answer to your example. Has happened lots of times to me. I may be an exception to the general rule, but I do look on what is happening in front of me and do check what is going on behind me too. When I have it done to me, I cn see wht the overall result will be and brake to allow the car in. It is better doing this, than carrying on at the same speed and having a multiple pile up.

Yes there are idiots on the road, buut there are also a lot of cycling idiots too. If traffic lights turn red and cars have to stop, why not bikes? If there is traffic ahead and you are in a queue, why weave through it or worse still get on the pavement and endanger pedestrians? If it is dark at night, you put your lights on to make you visible, why not the same for cyclists?

I was posting on here to try and give a fair and balanced response to what I have read, in a polite and non agressive tone. However anything that seems to be said to you and doesnt go with your mindset, gets a rather agressive response ( see your response to freddie and mine above if you need clarification ) Neither of which were aggressive to you or anyone else. I have followed other threads on this forum in which you partake, and you seem to get a thrill of goading other people into an agressive response, which I find childish and uncalled for, whilst you seem to get away scot free.

Please tone down your responses and stop goading people into uncharacteristic responses

custardy

George_Michael wrote: »

I didn't ask if you thought it was enforcable or not.
I asked if you thought cyclists should be tested and insured.
Just because you think it's unenforcable doesn't mean that you can't state your opinion.

wouldnt matter to me.
i would easily pass the test and given im already insuring 2 cars whilst on the bike.
whats a little more going to matter?

gregg1

Azari wrote: »

How is that relevant to the subject of this thread?

Like a lot of posters you seem to think that because some members of group A are not perfect there is something wrong with group A getting some help protecting themselves against some members of group B.

Which is blatantly nonsensical.

What a crock! For starters, you are not making any sense and secondly, I was pointing out that some cyclists can afford to be reckless because they can't be identified. Perfectly relevant to the thread and the other posts if you have bothered to read them properly!

gregg1

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

What is wrong with people also highlighting the ruthlessnees of some cyclists towards other road users and pedestrians?

Or are comparisons not allowed because you say so?

Well said.

Heliflyguy

Azari wrote: »

So what you are saying is that if anyone overtakes you you should immediately slow down or stop in case the person overtaking is such an appalling driver that they sideswipe you instead of abandoning an unsafe maneuver? A novel approach to road use.

What I am saying is the cyclist in the video should have slowed down to avoid the situation unless he would rather end up in hospital of course. In the video it is patently clear what was about to happen.
Do you say that cylists should put themselves in a dangerous situation because of a bad car/van driver just to prove there are bad drivers out there if so then your approach to road use is very odd indeed.

If you want to see a novel approach to road use then sit round my way a watch all the "Tour de France" boys and girls and how they use the road

But I'm afraid it's that sort of attitude that allows the bullies of this life to win by abusing the rights of others.

They were both being bullies, neither wanted to back down.

He was only at risk because the van driver made a fundamentally flawed decision and moved sideways into road space that was already occupied by another vehicle.

Even so but the cyclist could have still avoided the situation, but was intent not to.

If every road user drove in a way that assumed an overtaking driver was going to do that the roads would descend into chaos because the only response to seeing someone start to overtake you would be to slow down or stop.

Why was there any need for assumtion as I said the outcome was clear in the video.

You dont seem to want to admit they were both in the wrong do you?

gregg1

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

No it was not! You have totally misunderstood my post.