A clown takes a pratfall
Discussion
PurpleTurtle said:
whoami said:
Revhappychappy said:
He looks exactly as expected.Ironically the following story on Meridian News featured a reporter doing a piece to camera walking along a pedestrianised shopping street ... at least three cyclists clearly visible in 10 seconds cycling in a pedestrian area without giving those on foot the margin of safety that UphillFreewheeler t
t demands at the slightest provocation 
heebeegeetee said:
I also think people are massively missing a point with these cyclist vigilantes. They are exposing the st and dangerous drivers amongst us,
I think you are massively missing the point in this case. The adenoidal tosser on the bike is actively looking for confrontation, as evidenced by his pathetic collection of YouTube videos. He isn't doing cyclists any favour whatsoever with his behaviour, and come across as someone who has some kind of social disorder.t and dangerous drivers amongst us,St John Smythe said:
Well just as we thought, UphillGardner clearly looks like he still lives with his mother.
Unless the guy is in his 70's, he's not a good advert for the health benefits of cycling. He has more wrinkles than a scrotum.Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 12th August 17:57
Hungrymc said:
A question which I think you've been avoiding is how do you rate Uphillpillock's riding? Particularly when he was chasing the 405? (I totally accept the 405 driver was poor and his behaviour at the end was awful - not defending him for a second)
I don't think he's going to kill, maim or do anyone any possible real harm at all, is what I think about his riding, tbh, and beyond that I'm really not interested. I haven't bothered watching his other videos, as can be seen I hadn't even realised the two films I've commented on are the same cyclist - I mean, in the downhill one he's only likely to harm himself, isn't he?I don't even have a great issue with 405mans's driving in what we see, beyond saying I would never pass a cyclist like that. Other than that, I'm not really bothered. But his behaviour afterwards I thought he deserves a hell of a lot more punishment and embarrassment than he got.
i totally accept what you say about mistakes, we all make them, and whilst I would never deliberately overtake like Pratman did, god forbid I ever pull out on someone like in the downhill vid. If I ever did I'd be out of the car apologising profusely, and I certainly wouldn't want pages of comment on the other road user should I ever appear in one of these films.
Mr2Mike said:
I think you are massively missing the point in this case. The adenoidal tosser on the bike is actively looking for confrontation, as evidenced by his pathetic collection of YouTube videos. He isn't doing cyclists any favour whatsoever with his behaviour, and come across as someone who has some kind of social disorder.
You are most probably right. What I do think is that because conditions imo are so bad for cyclists in the uk, because so desperately little in terms of tangible benefit is accorded to them, that you only tend to get one type of cyclist pretty much overall here. I think to want to cycle on the roads in the UK I think you gave to be a fairly 'assertive' individual in the first place.When I travel in Northern Europe, and see pensioners cycling slowly side-by-side in sunshine on a cycle track well away from the roads, when I see families with young children cycling safely in city traffic, when I see those gorgeous young women cycling sat bolt upright with their long hair hanging straight down their backs - none of those types of cyclists seem to be over here. What is normal just across the water simply isn't so here.
In the UK it seems to me every cyclist has his head down and is wearing stupid clothing.
So I agree, we most probably don't get the best cyclists, we might have the worst cyclists for all I know, but I do think I know why that is, I think it's to be expected and won't change until all road users get an equal share of the roads for their taxes.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 13th August 00:43
OpulentBob said:
I live in Mumbai. The roads are fking chaotic. If that uphillcyclist knob came and road here in his primary position I guarantee he would be dead in 30 minutes, and the Police wouldn't give two sts because it is, on busy roads, a fking stupid thing to do. The cameras would just prove that.
Fortunately we hold ourselves accountable to slightly higher standards of driving and policework here. king chaotic. If that uphillcyclist knob came and road here in his primary position I guarantee he would be dead in 30 minutes, and the Police wouldn't give two sts because it is, on busy roads, a fking stupid thing to do. The cameras would just prove that. heebeegeetee said:
I mean, in the downhill one he's only likely to harm himself, isn't he?
Allow me to get up to 35mph on a bike, then step out in front of me and see what harm comes to you.That gets away from the stupidity of his actions for the sake of his own safety. If I ride like that (and it's not unheard of because I live in a part of the world with many steep hills and country roads) then I take others into account but above all I take my own safety into account. Does it mean I wouldn't go that fast on that hill? No, but it means I'd take a fair chunk of the blame myself for the outcome. This guy seems to think he's perfect, he's very far from it.
heebeegeetee said:
Another lengthy post, explaining a simple situation - pulling out of a side road. (May I also kindly suggest you use more paragraphs - makes them easier to read )
It's dead simple. Look right, look left, and look right again, jod done. In the video the driver has positioned himself badly - a bad mistake. But poor quality though the film is, at 25 secs we can see the drivers door and window, and so the driver is able see to all that he needs to which includes the cyclist.
This is not to be confused with blind spots in hgvs ( I see people confusing this all the time on these forums). With hgv blind spots you truly believe you can see all that you need to see and you truly believe the way is clear, only to discover there is an area not covered by the windows and mirrors and an entire car can hide in there. It's not that they can't see, it's that they are fooled into thinking they can see and the way is clear.
There is nothing like this going on here. If the driver can't see, then he can't go, can he? However even then this is not the case here, it's not as though only the nose/bonnet of the car is visible and the driver is struggling to see, its not that at all. At 26 secs the driver has no difficulty whatsover seeing up the road, there is no reason to not see the cyclist, yet he pulls out anyway. At 27 secs the cyclist is almost upon him, in broad daylight, and still the car is proceeding - god knows why he's adopted that position with his car though.
But, nice squirming guys. It's an utterly straight forward case of a driver not looking properly, and we're into lengthy posts of trying to explain it away, none of which hold any water whatsoever. The cyclist may be going a tad too fast for his own good, but he's doing the same speed as a car would be and is as visible as a car would be - a car would have had to brake very heavily indeed as he wouldn't had the option to squeeze past.
I also think people are massively missing a point with these cyclist vigilantes. They are exposing the st and dangerous drivers amongst us, the ones that make life a pain for all of us when out on the roads. What on earth is wrong with this? Yes the cyclist in our fabulous vid is a bit of a tit, but as we've said, he's struck absolute gold with this driver, (who if it were up to me he'd have been banned because he's clearly not safe to be behind the wheel - he is going to hurt somebody).
They're not the same as dashcam car drivers imo. These have cameras because they're poor drivers themselves and simply don't realise that it isn't everybody else's fault all the time, and they also give us a good laugh as they unwittedly reveal their own st driving time and time again.
So it comes down to being a grammar warrior now, does it...? )It's dead simple. Look right, look left, and look right again, jod done. In the video the driver has positioned himself badly - a bad mistake. But poor quality though the film is, at 25 secs we can see the drivers door and window, and so the driver is able see to all that he needs to which includes the cyclist.
This is not to be confused with blind spots in hgvs ( I see people confusing this all the time on these forums). With hgv blind spots you truly believe you can see all that you need to see and you truly believe the way is clear, only to discover there is an area not covered by the windows and mirrors and an entire car can hide in there. It's not that they can't see, it's that they are fooled into thinking they can see and the way is clear.
There is nothing like this going on here. If the driver can't see, then he can't go, can he? However even then this is not the case here, it's not as though only the nose/bonnet of the car is visible and the driver is struggling to see, its not that at all. At 26 secs the driver has no difficulty whatsover seeing up the road, there is no reason to not see the cyclist, yet he pulls out anyway. At 27 secs the cyclist is almost upon him, in broad daylight, and still the car is proceeding - god knows why he's adopted that position with his car though.
But, nice squirming guys. It's an utterly straight forward case of a driver not looking properly, and we're into lengthy posts of trying to explain it away, none of which hold any water whatsoever. The cyclist may be going a tad too fast for his own good, but he's doing the same speed as a car would be and is as visible as a car would be - a car would have had to brake very heavily indeed as he wouldn't had the option to squeeze past.
I also think people are massively missing a point with these cyclist vigilantes. They are exposing the s
t and dangerous drivers amongst us, the ones that make life a pain for all of us when out on the roads. What on earth is wrong with this? Yes the cyclist in our fabulous vid is a bit of a tit, but as we've said, he's struck absolute gold with this driver, (who if it were up to me he'd have been banned because he's clearly not safe to be behind the wheel - he is going to hurt somebody).They're not the same as dashcam car drivers imo. These have cameras because they're poor drivers themselves and simply don't realise that it isn't everybody else's fault all the time, and they also give us a good laugh as they unwittedly reveal their own s
t driving time and time again. I've watched this video a million times now. At 22 seconds the cyclist passes a sign warning of a sharp right hand bend and pedestrians in the road ahead. At 25 seconds the bonnet of the car comes into view. At 26 seconds the car is clearly already moving and the cyclist is upon it and having to go onto the opposite side of the road through a narrowing gap as the road narrows because he can't stop.
I don't see how the driver could have stopped at a right angle to the main road and still steered round to the left within the width of it.
You can do left and right checks for as long as you like but if someone is coming so fast he's upon you in a second or two, about as long as it takes to turn your head, you can hardly be blamed for not seeing him until there's a near miss.
Who's to say a car driver would have been going that fast down that hill? I wouldn't in my car, many drivers wouldn't. Cyclists know they're harder to spot than cars, especially in that kind of patchy light and shade under trees with the sun behind them and in other drivers' eyes, so they should take extra care to account for that.
Of course the cyclist could do harm to other people besides himself. Hitting someone at over 30mph could kill them. What if there had been a group of pedestrians or a horse and rider in the road as he'd come down that hill?
Gaz. said:
JuniorD said:
Keep riding alongside parked cars and you'll be met with a door, or will have to avoid a door, sooner or later.
There are two camps: there are those have been doored; and those who will be doored.
I was doored when I was 15, had to sit my French & History GCSE's sitting on a bean bag because I had a bruise on my pelvis like a cricket ball after going through the window of a Fiesta and landing really really hard on my hip on the road and then slid underneath a Vauxhall Carlton coming the other way and my head stopped a few inches from its back wheel.There are two camps: there are those have been doored; and those who will be doored.
I still think UHFW is a tit looking for trouble.
Dark winter's night, I wasn't really helping matters by dressing entirely in black from head to toe, one tiny handlebar light, and at the moment he opened the door I had been forced to veer towards him because an oncoming double-decker bus was overtaking parked cars on the opposite side of the road, forcing me closer that I wanted to be to 944 man. It made a tasty crease in his door after my 15st going at 15mph caught his door and bent it well beyond the usual door stop. Despite that, and repeating what I said earlier up the thread, I regularly cycle the very road that led to UHFW's incident and can categorically tell you that there is more space than his Go Pro footage leads the casual observer to believe, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at 405 man's overtake. UHFW is a prick looking for aggro, one day he's going to be on the receiving end of a proper shoeing because of it.
I say that as a keen motorist/cyclist/motorcyclist/pedestrian - we all need to share the roads without a feeling that one class of user is in some way superior to others. UHFW thinks he owns it, no wonder he gets in so many scrapes.
heebeegeetee said:
Hungrymc said:
A question which I think you've been avoiding is how do you rate Uphillpillock's riding? Particularly when he was chasing the 405? (I totally accept the 405 driver was poor and his behaviour at the end was awful - not defending him for a second)
I don't think he's going to kill, maim or do anyone any possible real harm at all, is what I think about his riding, tbh, and beyond that I'm really not interested. I don't even have a great issue with 405mans's driving in what we see, beyond saying I would never pass a cyclist like that. Other than that, I'm not really bothered.
Blakewater said:
1. At 25 seconds the bonnet of the car comes into view. At 26 seconds the car is clearly already moving and the cyclist is upon it and having to go onto the opposite side of the road through a narrowing gap as the road narrows because he can't stop.
2. I don't see how the driver could have stopped at a right angle to the main road and still steered round to the left within the width of it.
3. You can do left and right checks for as long as you like but if someone is coming so fast he's upon you in a second or two, about as long as it takes to turn your head, you can hardly be blamed for not seeing him until there's a near miss.
4. Who's to say a car driver would have been going that fast down that hill? I wouldn't in my car, many drivers wouldn't. Cyclists know they're harder to spot than cars, especially in that kind of patchy light and shade under trees with the sun behind them and in other drivers' eyes, so they should take extra care to account for that.
5. Of course the cyclist could do harm to other people besides himself. Hitting someone at over 30mph could kill them. What if there had been a group of pedestrians or a horse and rider in the road as he'd come down that hill?
1. You just can't tell the truth, can you? Have we got to get into the realms of screenshots now? On 25 seconds and before 26 seconds most of the car is in view, and at this point if the driver looks out of his window he'll see the cyclist. At 26 seconds all of the car is in view and the cyclist is very clearly visible, but I don't think the car ever stops fully and the driver simply hasn't looked properly. The cyclist doesn't pass the car until 3 seconds later - I'll screen shot if I have to - the cyclist doesn't pass the car at 26 seconds at all. What's the matter with you? It's at just 29 seconds he has to do as you describe.2. I don't see how the driver could have stopped at a right angle to the main road and still steered round to the left within the width of it.
3. You can do left and right checks for as long as you like but if someone is coming so fast he's upon you in a second or two, about as long as it takes to turn your head, you can hardly be blamed for not seeing him until there's a near miss.
4. Who's to say a car driver would have been going that fast down that hill? I wouldn't in my car, many drivers wouldn't. Cyclists know they're harder to spot than cars, especially in that kind of patchy light and shade under trees with the sun behind them and in other drivers' eyes, so they should take extra care to account for that.
5. Of course the cyclist could do harm to other people besides himself. Hitting someone at over 30mph could kill them. What if there had been a group of pedestrians or a horse and rider in the road as he'd come down that hill?
2. Whaaat?! Oh dear god, now I learn that after nigh on 40 years I've been doing side roads all wrong, yet I've never done what that driver did. Dear god. Look, if you're driving a van you have no option at all to stop at 90 degs to the main road, and likewise for many sports cars too.
3. He's doing approximately 30 mph, and so is the car in front of him, not 80 mph. I'd agree with you totally if he was doing 40-50 mph more than he was, but at 30 mph-ish? No way!
4. The bloody car in front of him was!
5. Of course he can - but it's extremely rare - so rare pedestrians don't worry too much about cyclists too much http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2640667/My...
It's very, very rare for a cyclist to seriously injure anyone else, and I don;t think our uphillhero is likely to hurt anyone imo.
Blakewater said:
At 22 seconds the cyclist passes a sign warning of a sharp right hand bend a
PS I think you're continuing to show your woeful lack of knowledge the rules of the road, as you did before about speed limits. I can't see what is written under the sign but the sign itself means 'bend to right'.The sign we see in the film is not a sign for a sharp bend at all, and nor is there a sharp bend.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
This is a sign for a sharp bend - black and white chevrons: http://images.staticjw.com/dsa/1652/warning-signs5...
kwock said:
OpulentBob said:
I live in Mumbai. The roads are fking chaotic. If that uphillcyclist knob came and road here in his primary position I guarantee he would be dead in 30 minutes, and the Police wouldn't give two sts because it is, on busy roads, a fking stupid thing to do. The cameras would just prove that.
Fortunately we hold ourselves accountable to slightly higher standards of driving and policework here. king chaotic. If that uphillcyclist knob came and road here in his primary position I guarantee he would be dead in 30 minutes, and the Police wouldn't give two sts because it is, on busy roads, a fking stupid thing to do. The cameras would just prove that. I don't disagree on policing standards... (Drink driving sir? That'll be a court appearance or a 300rupee/3 quid bribe...)
heebeegeetee said:
But, nice squirming guys. It's an utterly straight forward case of a driver not looking properly, and we're into lengthy posts of trying to explain it away, none of which hold any water whatsoever. The cyclist may be going a tad too fast for his own good, but he's doing the same speed as a car would be and is as visible as a car would be - a car would have had to brake very heavily indeed as he wouldn't had the option to squeeze past.
I have to pull you up on this. Whenever 2 wheelers are mentioned, the more pro-cyclists always say they are NOT as visible as cars hence "cagers" need to look more, SMIDSY, "Think once, twice, bike" etc. Now you're saying they are as visible? What about at junctions next to lorries (when the lorries were already at the junction waiting)?
I know you're desperate to be right but you can't have it both ways...
heebeegeetee said:
Blakewater said:
At 22 seconds the cyclist passes a sign warning of a sharp right hand bend a
PS I think you're continuing to show your woeful lack of knowledge the rules of the road, as you did before about speed limits. I can't see what is written under the sign but the sign itself means 'bend to right'.The sign we see in the film is not a sign for a sharp bend at all, and nor is there a sharp bend.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
This is a sign for a sharp bend - black and white chevrons: http://images.staticjw.com/dsa/1652/warning-signs5...
Cyclist or motorist, if something goes wrong on the road you look at what you can do yourself to prevent the same thing happening again, even if the other person has a blame to shoulder as well. You don't exhaust your energy arguing round in circles about how you're perfect and did nothing wrong and laws don't apply to you.
My original point was that, even though a cyclist isn't legally obliged to abide by a speed limit, a limit of 30mph indicating a residential area and a tricky piece of road, emphasised by other signage as well, is something he should take heed of and he should therefore keep his speed down. In several videos Uphillfreewheeler has near misses with being unable to stop the excuse he gives. He understands slowing and stopping his bike is difficult and yet he's speeding down a hill on a road he's probably traveled before into dangers he should be aware are there.
The most fundamental part of choosing a safe speed is being able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you see to be clear. Something the cyclist in the video couldn't do when presented with a quite typical hazard of road usage.
OpulentBob said:
I have to pull you up on this.
Whenever 2 wheelers are mentioned, the more pro-cyclists always say they are NOT as visible as cars hence "cagers" need to look more, SMIDSY, "Think once, twice, bike" etc. Now you're saying they are as visible? What about at junctions next to lorries (when the lorries were already at the junction waiting)?
I know you're desperate to be right but you can't have it both ways...
I'm talking only at the moment when the driver is failing to stop and check properly at the junction. It is broad daylight, the cyclist is in/near the middle of his lane and he is visible. perfectly visible, imo.Whenever 2 wheelers are mentioned, the more pro-cyclists always say they are NOT as visible as cars hence "cagers" need to look more, SMIDSY, "Think once, twice, bike" etc. Now you're saying they are as visible? What about at junctions next to lorries (when the lorries were already at the junction waiting)?
I know you're desperate to be right but you can't have it both ways...
The reason people don't see 99% of the time is because they don't look, and that's it.
Blakewater said:
I think you're basically arguing that cyclists have no obligation to take care of themselves and others and can blame every accident and near miss on other people. It's an attitude, along with being increasingly patronising, that makes people feel irritated by cyclists and leads to people not respecting them, which goes against what many cyclists are aiming for when trying to improve their safety on the road.
Cyclist or motorist, if something goes wrong on the road you look at what you can do yourself to prevent the same thing happening again, even if the other person has a blame to shoulder as well. You don't exhaust your energy arguing round in circles about how you're perfect and did nothing wrong and laws don't apply to you.
My original point was that, even though a cyclist isn't legally obliged to abide by a speed limit, a limit of 30mph indicating a residential area and a tricky piece of road, emphasised by other signage as well, is something he should take heed of and he should therefore keep his speed down. In several videos Uphillfreewheeler has near misses with being unable to stop the excuse he gives. He understands slowing and stopping his bike is difficult and yet he's speeding down a hill on a road he's probably traveled before into dangers he should be aware are there.
The most fundamental part of choosing a safe speed is being able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you see to be clear. Something the cyclist in the video couldn't do when presented with a quite typical hazard of road usage.
A tricky piece of road? It is a slight bend with a junction on the outside (if it were on the inside I'd agree with you).Cyclist or motorist, if something goes wrong on the road you look at what you can do yourself to prevent the same thing happening again, even if the other person has a blame to shoulder as well. You don't exhaust your energy arguing round in circles about how you're perfect and did nothing wrong and laws don't apply to you.
My original point was that, even though a cyclist isn't legally obliged to abide by a speed limit, a limit of 30mph indicating a residential area and a tricky piece of road, emphasised by other signage as well, is something he should take heed of and he should therefore keep his speed down. In several videos Uphillfreewheeler has near misses with being unable to stop the excuse he gives. He understands slowing and stopping his bike is difficult and yet he's speeding down a hill on a road he's probably traveled before into dangers he should be aware are there.
The most fundamental part of choosing a safe speed is being able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you see to be clear. Something the cyclist in the video couldn't do when presented with a quite typical hazard of road usage.
I am often saying on these threads that drivers can't seem to cope with any sort of challenge whatsoever, and here you are backing me up to a tee.
It is a quiet junction on a slight bend. What on earth can be tricky about that? Seriously? It is a slight bend.
The driver has failed to look properly and has pulled out on someone, and again, that's it, that's all there is to it.
don'tbesilly said:
heebeegeetee said:
Hungrymc said:
A question which I think you've been avoiding is how do you rate Uphillpillock's riding? Particularly when he was chasing the 405? (I totally accept the 405 driver was poor and his behaviour at the end was awful - not defending him for a second)
I don't think he's going to kill, maim or do anyone any possible real harm at all, is what I think about his riding, tbh, and beyond that I'm really not interested. I don't even have a great issue with 405mans's driving in what we see, beyond saying I would never pass a cyclist like that. Other than that, I'm not really bothered.
I've noticed with heebee's posts that whenever he starts losing the argument he comes out with 'not bothered' or 'don't care'. Lol
St John Smythe said:
I've noticed with heebee's posts that whenever he starts losing the argument he comes out with 'not bothered' or 'don't care'. Lol
b) how or what an I 'losing'?
c) check all the posts if you like, I've barely, if at all, mentioned either the driving or the cycling.
Most of my comments is simply correcting people on the rules of the road and correcting people who making stuff up.
heebeegeetee said:
St John Smythe said:
I've noticed with heebee's posts that whenever he starts losing the argument he comes out with 'not bothered' or 'don't care'. Lol
b) how or what an I 'losing'?
c) check all the posts if you like, I've barely, if at all, mentioned either the driving or the cycling.
Most of my comments is simply correcting people on the rules of the road and correcting people who making stuff up.
heebeegeetee said:
c) check all the posts if you like, I've barely, if at all, mentioned either the driving or the cycling.
Most of my comments is [sic] simply correcting people on the rules of the road and correcting people who making stuff up.
Apart from repeatedly posting that the 405 driver should be banned, railing against other thread contributors for not criticising him enough, complaining that your are ashamed to be associated with such a 'knuckle dragging Neanderthals' by virtue of the fact you also drive a car (I presume). That is just the last few pages. You are both witless and the most frequent contributor to this thread, the sort which makes people long for an ignore button.Most of my comments is [sic] simply correcting people on the rules of the road and correcting people who making stuff up.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff