YouTube idiots

sinbad182

Obviously not, and I think you're misquoting me on purpose as you're struggling for a counter argument.

No one has defended the driver at any point, and of course the cyclist doesn't deserve to have his foot run over or get punched.

However, in the space of 90 seconds, that cyclist puts himself in needless danger twice and pays a price both times - all because he initially created a confrontation out of the kind of minor incident you see every day, and that most normal people shrug off with a shake of the head and no further thought.

His disproportionate reaction to the initial and secondary incident in that video directly caused what transpired afterwards.

Retrogamer

People in this thread might not have defended the driver, but the posts look as if they're blaming the cyclist for everything as if it was soley their fault.

On the type of reasoning for attributing blame being shown, it would mean if i cycled my bicycle through a red light and got abuse from motorists for it, it would be their fault if i picked up my bike and flung it off their car because although i would be cycling illegally, it would be their fault for confronting me.

Norman_Castle

Mark_Mark wrote: »

That'll teach him, a section 5 public order offence nicely dealt with.

"Dealt with" presumably in the same way the Audi driver and passenger deal with anyone who challenges them. But as they're in a car its acceptable?.

sinbad182

It's interesting the two posters most vehemently absolving the cyclist of any blame in the incident both have the same habit of putting words in other posters mouths to prove a point.

In answer to retrogamer - yes, a motorist who reacted in that way to poor cycling standards would be just as foolish and just as culpable for any negative comebacks as the cyclist in the video.

The big difference is that they are less likely to suffer from these comebacks as seriously as the cyclist did. Cars offer physical protection through their size and enclosed nature, meaning a needlessly confrontational driver is less likely to come out of a situation as badly as the needlessly confrontational cyclist. It's not right or fair, but it's the way it is on shared roads.

I ride motorcycles, and one of the first things you're taught is to keep yourself out of any dangerous situations as you have little protection if anything happens. On two separate occasions that cyclist put himself in direct danger over an initial incident that was of no real consequence, and both times he got hurt.

Retrogamer

I'm not saying the cyclists behavior was what i was do, but strictly speaking the situation happened after the Audi driver broke the law. That is the event that instigated the cyclists confrontation and was what initiated the whole situation. If the driver hadn't done that, the cyclist would have had no reason to approach the vehicle.

The cyclist wasn't breaking any laws. The motorist was up to that point.
That's the point i was getting at.
What if the cyclist was an undercover police officer trying to uphold the law?
Would it still all be their fault?

I ride motorcycles, bicycles and drive cars as well btw.

Johno100

Retrogamer wrote: »

The cyclist wasn't breaking any laws. The motorist was up to that point.
That's the point i was getting at.
What if the cyclist was an undercover police officer trying to uphold the law?
Would it still all be their fault?

Technically the cyclists who entered the ASZ when the light was red and not via a feeder lane were breaking the law.

And where are you getting it from that the Audi ran over the cyclists foot? Has he handed himself in yet?

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

And where are you getting it from that the Audi ran over the cyclists foot?

The cyclist says so himself to the Audi driver when he catches up with him at the second set of lights.

Johno100 wrote: »

Has he handed himself in yet?

Maybe? If he did, how would we find out about it?

Johno100

Retrogamer wrote: »

The cyclist says so himself to the Audi driver when he catches up with him at the second set of lights.

Is that just after the cyclist called the driver a f***ing P***k? It is not clear to me with the traffic noise but it sounds more like " you nearly ran over my foot..."

And unless he was wearing steel toe capped shoes/boots, if he had been run over he wouldn't have been in any position to chase the Audi down.

Retrogamer wrote: »

Maybe? If he did, how would we find out about it?

Don't worry the lycra Taliban will get his story all over social media and forums as soon as he surfaces.

Retrogamer

Johno100 wrote: »

Is that just after the cyclist called the driver a f***ing P***k? It is not clear to me with the traffic noise but it sounds more like " you nearly ran over my foot..."

I didn't hear the word nearly in the sentence, but that's when yeah.
Judging by the video description it looks like the person doing the filming uploaded it as well and it looks like the cyclist has claimed they ran over their foot.

Johno100 wrote: »

And unless he was wearing steel toe capped shoes/boots, if he had been run over he wouldn't have been in any position to chase the Audi down.

What if it only ran over part of his foot and didn't cause a lot of pain?
What if the cyclist cycled through the pain from adrenaline?

sinbad182

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm not saying the cyclists behavior was what i was do, but strictly speaking the situation happened after the Audi driver broke the law. That is the event that instigated the cyclists confrontation and was what initiated the whole situation. If the driver hadn't done that, the cyclist would have had no reason to approach the vehicle.

The cyclist wasn't breaking any laws. The motorist was up to that point.
That's the point i was getting at.
What if the cyclist was an undercover police officer trying to uphold the law?
Would it still all be their fault?

I ride motorcycles, bicycles and drive cars as well btw.

Yes the situation happened after the driver broke the law, but that act was not a sufficient trigger for the cyclists behaviour from that point on.

We all see laws being broken every day, especially minor traffic violations, but few people feel the need to escalate these incidents in to conflict situations as that cyclist did. There's not a chance he was or ever could have been a police officer given the way he handled the situation btw.

It's not 'all his fault' he ended up getting lamped - it was the driver who decided to get physical. However, it is his fault he put himself in that situation and at risk of getting hurt (twice), as he had no need or reason to do so.