YouTube idiots

custardy

londonTiger wrote: »

Cyclists can dish it out but they can't take it. Notice how all these videos have comments blocks. Clearly cyclist was in the wrong here, going out to look for trouble.

What a !!!!!!!, I bet he won't try that any more.

Just look at how biased the title is. Title should be Cyclist provocation results in physical altercation.

It saves reading posts about road tax

Anyway to summarise the thread.
Driver breaks motoring law and follows up with assault.
(all?) cyclist deserved all

Strider590

custardy wrote: »

It saves reading posts about road tax

Anyway to summarise the thread.
Driver breaks motoring law and follows up with assault.
(all?) cyclist deserved all

Most people will defend the driver, even if the driver was 100% in the wrong. Most drivers simply hate cyclists because they're an unprotected minority, drivers feel immune to giving them a hard time, because they think it's right to do so.

It's no different to racism, the abuse won't stop until it become socially unacceptable.

Mark_Mark

londonTiger wrote: »

You lost the arguement when you post one assumptions after another after another.

This wasnt just abuse. abuse is when someone shouts w*****r at you from across the road. Intimidation and provocation is when someone screams at you while standing over you just 12 inches away.

There was no injury and anyone sensible can see that.

The law is to be enforced by authorities, not vigilantes.

Without exception?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4873056

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

It saves reading posts about road tax

Anyway to summarise the thread.
Driver breaks motoring law and follows up with assault.
(all?) cyclist deserved all

The driver didn't assault anyone.

sinbad182

custardy wrote: »

It saves reading posts about road tax

Anyway to summarise the thread.
Driver breaks motoring law and follows up with assault.
(all?) cyclist deserved all

Another member of the cyclists do no wrong lobby simplifying things to their base level and putting words in others mouths.

Well I never.

thelawnet

londonTiger wrote: »

Cyclists can dish it out but they can't take it. Notice how all these videos have comments blocks. Clearly cyclist was in the wrong here, going out to look for trouble.

'Cyclists' can dish what out?

You are inhabiting a very black and white world.

There are idiots on bikes, idiots in cars, but to say 'cyclists can dish it out' is a really moronic, stupid comment.

How about the old lady up the road who rides her bike with a wicker basket to the shops?

The sooner you realise that 'cyclists' are not one group, any more than motorists are, the sooner your s**t driving will improve.

The number of mouth breathers who post silly generalizations about 'cyclists' explains exactly why some people on bikes film and post on Youtube.

londonTiger

thelawnet wrote: »

'Cyclists' can dish what out?

You are inhabiting a very black and white world.

There are idiots on bikes, idiots in cars, but to say 'cyclists can dish it out' is a really moronic, stupid comment.

How about the old lady up the road who rides her bike with a wicker basket to the shops?

The sooner you realise that 'cyclists' are not one group, any more than motorists are, the sooner your s**t driving will improve.

The number of mouth breathers who post silly generalizations about 'cyclists' explains exactly why some people on bikes film and post on Youtube.

I am a cyclist and a driver. I have to say there are more law breaking cyclists than there are stupid car drivers.

Car drivers are held to account for their bad driving. Cyclists are not - they have no visible reg markers on them.

Two videos I've seen where police tried to detain bad cyclists abd hold them to account

1) caught by bicycle police. Cyclist mouths of asking the polioce to state what law he broke and what section yadda yadda yadda. Tells police that police has no right to detain him and cycles away.

2) cyclist jumps a amber light, and almost runs over off duty police officer at the pedestrian crossing 30 meters away. Clearly cyclist was not riding fast enough to beat the amber and the "walk" light. But proceeded to tell off duty cop that cop is in the wrong and he was crossing the road "illegaly". All the cyclists on the comments said off duty police was on a power trip and taking the cyclists side.

Any driver stop when a pedestrian sets foot on the road they are driving on (definitely on their side of the road)

Cyclists never follow that and feel that can weave inbetween the pedestrians.

For every 10 cyclists on a red light, 5 will weave through if they can.

thelawnet

londonTiger wrote: »

I am a cyclist and a driver. I have to say there are more law breaking cyclists than there are stupid car drivers.

When I drive my car I break the speed limit, some times. Maybe some other laws too. Most drivers too.

On my bike I also break some laws. Most cyclists too.

The difference is that mistakes by car drivers are much more likely to be fatal, so when I get behind the wheel of a car I am rightly held to a higher standard, on things like red lights, because cars weigh 3 tonnes and go 100mph+, and kill people every day. Bikes don't.

A 747 driver has a higher standard still. The alcohol limit in a 747 is zero, in a car 80mg or whatever, and in a bicycle nobody really cares, because there isn't a big threat from drunk cyclists (whereas drunk drivers kill many).

Any driver stop when a pedestrian sets foot on the road they are driving on (definitely on their side of the road)

Eh, no they don't. They are supposed to, but plenty of cases of people being run down by cars.

Cyclists never follow that and feel that can weave inbetween the pedestrians.

For every 10 cyclists on a red light, 5 will weave through if they can.

Well fundamentally, cyclists can do this. Bicycles and pedestrians are mixed in many areas. Plenty of cycle paths, bridleways, and so on where this happens, by design, without any problems.

On the other hand you won't find anywhere in the world where a deliberate decision has been taken to mix cars and pedestrians. They don't mix at all.

Basically the motorist is annoyed because he sees the cyclist going while he has to wait. Ok, but the traffic light wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for cars - they are not built for bicycles.

Anyway, further down the road, the motorist will overtake, breaking the speed limit typically. The cyclist doesn't generally go screaming at him for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

Rules and practice are different things. Let people get on.

Mark_Mark

thelawnet wrote: »

When I drive my car I break the speed limit, some times. Maybe some other laws too. Most drivers too.

On my bike I also break some laws. Most cyclists too.

The difference is that mistakes by car drivers are much more likely to be fatal, so when I get behind the wheel of a car I am rightly held to a higher standard, on things like red lights, because cars weigh 3 tonnes and go 100mph+, and kill people every day. Bikes don't.

A 747 driver has a higher standard still. The alcohol limit in a 747 is zero, in a car 80mg or whatever, and in a bicycle nobody really cares, because there isn't a big threat from drunk cyclists (whereas drunk drivers kill many).



Eh, no they don't. They are supposed to, but plenty of cases of people being run down by cars.



Well fundamentally, cyclists can do this. Bicycles and pedestrians are mixed in many areas. Plenty of cycle paths, bridleways, and so on where this happens, by design, without any problems.

On the other hand you won't find anywhere in the world where a deliberate decision has been taken to mix cars and pedestrians. They don't mix at all.

Basically the motorist is annoyed because he sees the cyclist going while he has to wait. Ok, but the traffic light wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for cars - they are not built for bicycles.

Anyway, further down the road, the motorist will overtake, breaking the speed limit typically. The cyclist doesn't generally go screaming at him for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

Rules and practice are different things. Let people get on.

A 3 tonne car, what do you drive?

Sorry but you lost credibility when you referred to a pilot as a 747 driver.

thelawnet

Mark_Mark wrote: »

A 3 tonne car, what do you drive?

Last gen Range Rover weighed 2810kg, depending on config.

Sorry but you lost credibility when you referred to a pilot as a 747 driver.

Well no, that was my point. A 747 pilot is by no means equivaent to a car driver, any more than a car driver can be equated with a cyclist, as londonTiger insists.