Cyclists fighting back against oafish drivers

rustyboy21

custardy wrote: »

required? by whom
so in hi viz,this wouldnt have happened?

It would have possibly alerted the van driver of the close proximity of the cyclist and that he may need to increase speed even more to avert an accident

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

In a built up area, such as cities, a cyclist can get to far faster speeds than a motorist can, especially if they drive in such wanton abandon.

If they are going faster than the motorist can how can the motorist be overtaking them - which they would have to be doing for the piece you quoted to be relevant?

Can you see the inconsistancy in your position here?

Do at least try and make sense.

There again, you are slighting my comment in such a demeaning manner, acting as you have the right to hold the only valid viewpoint. everyone has the right to express their views

And if they are stupid and at odds with logic then anyone is allwed to express their view that they are stupid and lacking in logic. Or is it only you who's allowed to express his views?

Anyway, shouldn't you be at work?

taker920

Had some a***hole cyclist slap the back of my car and shout the other day whilst waiting in traffic on narrow lanes at a roundabout.

If I see him again he'll be getting squeezed off the road and i'll glady take the punishment that comes

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

It would have possibly alerted the van driver of the close proximity of the cyclist

No, the van driver would have known he was passing someone.

You may want to make up your own rules in your utter desperation to show that black is white and the cyclist is somehow responsible for the van driver's aggressive behaviour but there is no suggestion in law that cyclists must wear high visibility clothing.

and that he may need to increase speed even more to avert an accident

He did not need to increase speed he merely needed to avoid a pointless swerve to the left,

rustyboy21

Azari

You don't seem to be taking in what I have been saying all through my posts.

The cyclist mentioned was not at fault in this insatnce, the van driver was. I havent said anything other than that.

What I have said, however is that, even though the van driver was at fault, the best way for the cyclist would be to slow down, or stop to avoid collision. This is what you don't want to accept.

What is better, trying to avoid an accident, or making sure you are in one, so you can prosecute or get killed?

In general life, there are good drivers and bad drivers, similarly there are good cyclists and bad ones.

You seem to be taking the stance that the cyclists are never in the wrong and it is always the driver who is at fault, which is plainly incorrect

A little more thought on both sides and seeing what is actually happening in your vicinity is what is needed. Following the highway code also helps. Do this instead of having a one track mind on where you want to get to helps. Cyclists wearing I-pods dont help either, same as having your car radio on full blast

rustyboy21

Azari wrote: »

No, the van driver would have known he was passing someone.

You may want to make up your own rules in your utter desperation to show that black is white and the cyclist is somehow responsible for the van driver's aggressive behaviour but there is no suggestion in law that cyclists must wear high visibility clothing.



He did not need to increase speed he merely needed to avoid a pointless swerve to the left,

But if he couldnt properly see him through his nearside mirror, due to not wearing high viz, he wouldnt know if he had passed him enough would he?

And I am not seeing black as white, as you say, you are not reading my posts properly, but that par for the course on here.

I am not making up my own rules, I am using common sense, something other people should start using.

If you think you are going to get me in an aggressive state so I retaliate to one of your comments and in doing so lower myself to your level, think again. I havent had posts removed on here unlike some people.

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

You don't seem to be taking in what I have been saying all through my posts.

On the contrary. However, you do not seem to have been understanding mine.

What I have said, however is that, even though the van driver was at fault, the best way for the cyclist would be to slow down, or stop to avoid collision. This is what you don't want to accept.

Of course not.

Because it would be absurd if every time someone found themselves being passed they slowed down or stopped in case some idiot swerved to the left for no reason.

What is better, trying to avoid an accident, or making sure you are in one, so you can prosecute or get killed?

The answer to that is obvious.

But you cannot anticipate some clown doing something completely unpredictable as the van driver did here when he moved to the left even though he had a clear road in front of him and would need to pass a parked car a second or two further on.

You seem to be taking the stance that the cyclists are never in the wrong and it is always the driver who is at fault

No!

The stance I am taking is that in the case of this event the cyclist was not to blame because there was no reason for the van to swerve to the left.

This is the point that you have been repeatedly ignoring for many posts now.

It is the crux of the matter and is what earned him the fine and the points on his licence.

A little more thought on both sides and seeing what is actually happening in your vicinity is what is needed.

In general, yes. 'Read the road' is considered the most important thing to lear for the advanced driving test. (They assume you can steer and brake. )

But in this case, what should the cyclist have thought that would have lead him to think the van was going to swerve left when it needed to keep right to pass the parked car?

Cyclists wearing I-pods dont help either, same as having your car radio on full blast

True - I couldn't cycle/drive doing either.

adouglasmhor

taker920 wrote: »

Had some a***hole cyclist slap the back of my car and shout the other day whilst waiting in traffic on narrow lanes at a roundabout.

If I see him again he'll be getting squeezed off the road and i'll glady take the punishment that comes

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

Azari

rustyboy21 wrote: »

But if he couldnt properly see him through his nearside mirror, due to not wearing high viz, he wouldnt know if he had passed him enough would he?

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

You can't turn traffic law on it's head by suddenly making it the victim's fault when he is hit by someone who has only started passing him half a second ago on the somewhat tenuous basis that someone who could not see a grown man no more than ten feet away would suddenly, magically, become aware of him if he had been wearing bright yellow.

That van driver knew perfectly well the cyclist was there and was trying to intimidate him but got it wrong, swerved too far and knocked him off.

And I am not seeing black as white, as you say, you are not reading my posts properly, but that par for the course on here.

Oh, I'm reading your posts perfectly well.

You are trying to lay part of the blame for the van driver making a totally unnecessary swerve to the left on the cyclist who could have had no reason to believe he would perform such a maneuver when the road conditions indicated that, if anything, he should have been doing the opposite.

I am not making up my own rules, I am using common sense, something other people should start using.

No you're not. You are ignoring perfectly clear fact in your desperation to hold the cyclist partly to blame for something that was wholly the fault of the van driver.

If you think you are going to get me in an aggressive state

I assume that you are able to control yourself. If you feel that you are in danger of becoming aggressive perhaps you should take a chill pill.

adouglasmhor

Azari wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous.

You can't turn traffic law on it's head by suddenly making it the victim's fault when he is hit by someone who has only started passing him half a second ago on the somewhat tenuous basis that someone who could not see a grown man no more than ten feet away would suddenly, magically, become aware of him if he had been wearing bright yellow.

Come on, the way that cyclist was dressed, he was asking for it