Cyclist v Motorist that's actually worth watching

Minrich

Retrogamer wrote: »

That's the law which is ancient (well over 100 years old now) and hardly anyone is ever charged with because it's very difficult for the police to get a successful prosecution for it.

What like the ancient law that is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ? Doesn't matter how old the law is , does it ?

ChumLee

Minrich wrote: »

What like the ancient law that is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ? Doesn't matter how old the law is , does it ?

Or murder contrary to common law if I remember correctly.

Retrogamer

Minrich wrote: »

What like the ancient law that is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 ? Doesn't matter how old the law is , does it ?

I think it depends on the context and how often it's successfully used.

There are other laws we have now which would cover the same grounds as "furious cycling" such as careless and inconsiderate cycling.

I can't think of a scenario that someone would be successfully charged for "furious cycling" but the much more modern careless and inconsiderate cycling charge wouldn't apply.

prowla

Mercdriver wrote: »

Highway code says to allow enough space for car doors to be opened. The cyclist actually didn't leave enough space. It also says that cars must allow a metre at least beyond the handlebars. The driver didn't.

I'm also all three.

If you look at the point where the overtake occurred, there were no parked cars on the left.

custardy

prowla wrote: »

If you look at the point where the overtake occurred, there were no parked cars on the left.

and the driver waited for the cyclist to move into that space?
Nope,they pushed on as it suited them. They committed to the manoeuvre regardless of the cyclists road position.

=rizla=

Retrogamer wrote: »

If that's the most recent prosecution for it, then 1 prosecution in 18 years validates it's a difficult thing to be prosecuted for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm , obviously a sad story, and i'll agree it probably is a difficult thing to prosecute for in all but the most extreme cases/outcomes.

mcpitman

Jay_Tee wrote: »

Personally I think they deserve each other - a pair of prats.

The car certainly passed the cyclist far too closely, however I did notice that the cyclist at 37 seconds into the video passing very closely a pedestrian - to me he seems as arrogant and unpleasant as the car driver.

I cannot but wonder if he chased the driver purely to gain footage for youtube.

I agree, 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Yes the motorist was probably a bit close, but if a car driver drove after someone, not taking any care at junctions and nearly hitting pedestrians, many people would be in uproar about the incident.

However, because it was a vigilanty, self righteous cyclist who chose to chase the motorist down, then that's ok.....

I am also a car user motorbike user, cyclist and pedestrian. Whichever way you look at it, they are both as bad as each other. Live and let live guys...

P.s. it isn't a hate crime either.

Norman_Castle

prowla wrote: »

If you look at the point where the overtake occurred, there were no parked cars on the left.

The gap between the parked cars was too short. Its likely an overtake wouldn't be completed forcing the cyclist to slow or stop. If you look a few seconds further on there are no parked cars and plenty of room to overtake. This was clearly visible to the driver.

The driver had no interest in slowing or passing courteously. He's an ignoramus who wouldn't be missed by any road user. How do you think he reacts to disagreements with other drivers?.

Watching this idiot land in the gutter is relentlessly funny :rotfl:

bod1467

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The gap between the parked cars was too short.

Really? Not from what I saw. The car was past way before the gap ended (considering the cyclist's speed). That was my initial thought when I first watched the video ... why didn't the cyclist pull over to the left lane?

I've no idea if the driver started the overtake before the gap appeared though - that's not clear from the video.

custardy

bod1467 wrote: »

Really? Not from what I saw. The car was past way before the gap ended (considering the cyclist's speed). That was my initial thought when I first watched the video ... why didn't the cyclist pull over to the left lane?

I've no idea if the driver started the overtake before the gap appeared though - that's not clear from the video.

It doesnt matter. The driver had decided they were overtaking regardless.


print screen windows 7