I will knock you out ! BBCs Jeremy Vine films woman driver`s shocking road rage

Nessun_Dorma

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Are you seriously telling us that it's not common courtesy for a car to wait until it can pass without requiring a cyclist to either stop their equally important journey or making them ride in the gutter!

If Mr Vine had pulled over, he would not have been in the gutter. It would not have delayed his journey by any significant amount and it would have avoided an escalated confrontation.

Or perhaps you think courtesy is a one sided affair where others show courtesy to you but you show none to others. This is precisely the sort of self entitlement I was talking about in my original post.

As I said earlier, your idea of courtesy seems to be incongruous with a significant proportion of society. You seem to be the type who would deliberately take up space on a carriageway, in slow moving traffic, to prevent a motorist from emerging out of a side road, or change lanes in front of a car on a roundabout, to prevent them from getting in front of you, because they are "not entitled" to occupy a space that you could have instead.

Stevie_Palimo

He may not be everyone's cup of tea but was right in how he handled the situation with a pent up individual that should not be on the road in the first place, I do not have much of a liking for cyclists where I am based but this is simply due to arrogance on there behalf and believing they own the road that is a shared entity.

However you travel it can become a bone of contention for many as these days everyone is in a rush to get to places but still needs to be done safely, my gripe here with cyclists is how they decide to ride on the roads and they do not give a hoot about anyone else's journey.

Nessun_Dorma

hugheskevi wrote: »

If cyclist moves left and the car overtakes, the car will reach the end of the street and the cyclist will filter past the car either as the car waits to turn into traffic or as the car is stuck in heavy traffic on the main road. What is the point of moving aside just to enable the car to get ahead for what will literally be about 20 metres of distance and 10 seconds of time before the cyclist moves back in front?

There is absolutely no point in the car overtaking, it is the slower vehicle in these traffic conditions.

All of that may be so, it certainly doesn't appear to offer the motorist much of an advantage, but what it does do is avoid the conflict in the first place.

It can also be dangerous to move left in these sort of conditions, as the cyclist probably does not know that there is a single vehicle behind him. If he moves left it is common that although one car can easily overtake, a second vehicle behind that car would then similarly decide to overtake and not give the cyclist space to move back right to be in position to get past the next set of cars. That can have a variety of results, ranging from the second driver ranting that the cyclist cut them up as they moved back right to the cyclist coming to an abrupt halt to let the second vehicle past.

Surely the most appropriate riding and driving in this situation is for all parties to hold a steady and predictable line. No need for unnecessary moving, no need for pointless overtakes, and all parties get to their destination in the fastest and safest way possible?

A look behind him would have solved all of those issues.

Nessun_Dorma

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

If you think she was bad, you need to see this idiot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37288210

Although the actions of the car driver was deplorable, why were the cyclists not using the path specifically designated for them to use (a segregated cycle lane). Purely from a safety aspect alone, it would have been the best option for them.

Nessun_Dorma

googler wrote: »

So you expect him to find a space to stop, between the parked cars, just because the car behind him wants to reach the next junction a bit sooner? For, as you can see, Vine caught up with her at that point....

There was no need to look very far. He actually stopped at a place where he could have safely pulled over.

hugheskevi

I haven't seen in this or other threads any mention that the key reason for any hold-up was the presence of stationary cars - a 6+ foot wide piece of metal that will not move for hours at a time is responsible for far more holdups than a 2 foot wide moving cyclist. Yet no ire is directed at the parked car owner for the delay they cause by obstructing free-flowing traffic.

This isn't surprising as it is in-line with the insider group psychological research that these things are ignored as drivers identify with the parked car owners and so put their focus on the cyclist.

Nessun_Dorma

WOW!

Talk about paranoia. :eek:

hugheskevi

Talk about paranoia.

Personally I prefer science and evidence, which are readily available in published online article such as the one linked to earlier in the thread. But whatever floats your boat

Would a fair summary of your points be that:

• You agree the overtake was pointless
• The cyclist should nonetheless get out of the cars way
• This may hold up the cyclist a little, but it is more important to avoid possible confrontation with the minority of drivers who refuse to follow road rules
• Presumably if there is more than one car, the cyclist should stop and wait for them to pass (as weaving in and out will bring them into conflict with following cars which the cyclist should be seeking to avoid)
• Once the cars are past, the cyclist can continue and filter past the cars once they are stationary in queued traffic

Or, for brevity, that cars should have precedence at all times over cyclists?

Keep_pedalling

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Although the actions of the car driver was deplorable, why were the cyclists not using the path specifically designated for them to use (a segregated cycle lane). Purely from a safety aspect alone, it would have been the best option for them.

Cycle paths are not designed for riding at speed, which is the point of a Sunday morning club ride. They had every right to be on the public highway, and the idiot in the car had no right to do what he did, and frankly should have his right to drive on the road removed pronto.

Nessun_Dorma

hugheskevi wrote: »

Personally I prefer science and evidence, which are readily available in published online article such as the one linked to earlier in the thread. But whatever floats your boat

Would a fair summary of your points be that:

• You agree the overtake was pointless
• The cyclist should nonetheless get out of the cars way
• This may hold up the cyclist a little, but it is more important to avoid possible confrontation with the minority of drivers who refuse to follow road rules
• Presumably if there is more than one car, the cyclist should stop and wait for them to pass (as weaving in and out will bring them into conflict with following cars which the cyclist should be seeking to avoid)
• Once the cars are past, the cyclist can continue and filter past the cars once they are stationary in queued traffic

Or, for brevity, that cars should have precedence at all times over cyclists?

Yeeeess.....because that is exactly what I mean. :wall:

You seem to have no concept of manners and courtesy.