'Cycling' cafe owner launches raod rage attack at cyclist

[okgo]

I ride that bit of road every day, a few reasons why you wouldn't use the path -

- its covered in st (like most)
- it is interrupted by a few pretty busy junctions, the priory and the tennis club, they don't look either, just pull out
- you would have to cross the road to get onto it as you join that road on the left obviously, its better in opposite direction
- about 400m down you have to then cross back over the road as the bike lane stops and dumps you back on the road on wrong side
- the road is arrow straight and overtaking is easy as its not really a busy road, not a issue for motorists

[Soov535]

Here's his Twitter.

https://twitter.com/BrewWells

December 7th he manages to post a picture of his own cock.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4RuapvIUAAPiAA.jpg

[upsidedownmark]

superkartracer said:

Tell ya what, you stand in the road and i'll come and swerve at you in my 3 ton car, see how you feel about it.

Unsure why people don't get locked-up for doing that, very strange.





^^ some pictures as moving images can be taxing..

Spot the difference?

Edited by superkartracer on Tuesday 2nd June 12:01

OK, here's another one for your spot the difference:



Now, why on earth would our poor 'victim' push FORWARD into that closing gap (to reach your position #2) when he has a safe out - other self righteous rage/to go on the attack because of what is at that point not that massive a deal?

Been squeezed by the likes of moron #1 many times thanks - I just have a little more common sense and try anticipate / avoid / otherwise back out of bad situations, not because I should have to, but for my own self preservation, and to avoid being moron #2.

Also, if someone wants to kill you with a car, they can - no 'attempt'. Even if you define a car as an offensive weapon (which I almost agree with), squeezing someone with it is no more 'attempted murder' than waving a knife at someone is. The sensationalism and the victim mentality gets a bit boring frankly - we're all traffic.

And to the more recent poster, there's probably a better argument that cars shouldn't be allowed in modern urban areas than bikes.. sorry

[SteveSteveson]

shakotan said:

I'll cop flak for this I know, but it's long been my opinion that cyclists have no place on modern roads.

They just don't mix well with the rest of the traffic that uses the same stretch of tarmac. It's not the cyclist's fault, they are just too slow and too vulnerable.

There needs to be either a totally separate infrastructure if used for transport, or restricted to off-road situations for leisure.

Or people could just make sensible overtakes?

Or perhaps you should get off the road and give them over to motorbikes. I get stuck behind cars on my motorbike far more than I get stuck behind cyclists in my car. I also get stuck behind lorries and tractors more than cyclists when I'm in my car.

It's just a stupid argument to say they are too slow. How about just giving other road users room and accepting that we are all just trying to get somewhere? Unless your vehicle has a blue flashing light you are not more important and should just wait until an overtake is safe, just like you would with a lorry, tractor or slow moving car.

[Pachydermus]

AyBee said:

Pachydermus said:

AyBee said:

Not defending the driver's actions in any way, shape or form, but the cyclist really doesn't help himself - the Disco tries to follow the yellow car past and then the yellow car stops so the Disco finds himself up against the cyclist, very bad planning by the Disco, but the first thing the cyclist does is hit the car...

the fact that he can touch the Disco means that the driver has clearly not left a safe gap while passing. Please acquaint yourself with the highway code.

I'm perfectly familiar with the highway code, thanks, but sometimes it's not practical and sometimes it's accidental, if I took the rule to hit every vehicle within arms reach of me, I'd be hitting a lot of cars daily. The window of the Disco is down, the driver can quite easily hear the guy on the bike and yet the cyclist's first word is accompanied by a thud on the Disco. The Disco is actually moving out again to overtake the next cyclist when the camera cyclist thumps it.

not practical? Well how about waiting until it is then?
I was driving behind an artic on saturday that pulled off a similarly dangerous overtake. I followed behind the bikes and stopped in a queue of traffic behind the artic - the same queue that was clearly visible when he started his overtake. The bikes pedalled down to the front of the queue and were off (on green). The lights went red again before artic and I made it to the lights. Bikes were well gone by then. It amazes me the number of idiots who do this. Where do they think they're going to get to in busy London traffic?

[SteveSteveson]

upsidedownmark said:

OK, here's another one for your spot the difference:



Now, why on earth would our poor 'victim' push FORWARD into that closing gap (to reach your position #2) when he has a safe out - other self righteous rage/to go on the attack because of what is at that point not that massive a deal?

He didn't. The Disco slammed his brakes on for no reason (well, to have a go at the cyclist, but not because of a hazard) and the cyclist didn't expect it.

[dick_turpin]

shakotan said:

I'll cop flak for this I know, but it's long been my opinion that cyclists have no place on modern roads.

They just don't mix well with the rest of the traffic that uses the same stretch of tarmac. It's not the cyclist's fault, they are just too slow and too vulnerable.

There needs to be either a totally separate infrastructure if used for transport, or restricted to off-road situations for leisure.

If you ban cycles from roads, most of them will just drive instead.
Do you think that will make congestion better or worse?

I honestly can't understand why some people can't grasp the simple and obvious truth that more people cycling is better for everyone - even people who will never, ever cycle.

[supertouring]

Anyone mention that the Disco driver should be angry, he has to pay car tax and the cyclist does not?

No?

PH standards are slipping.

[superkartracer]

https://www.facebook.com/BrewCafe

[Disastrous]

Also the feet from a fking Hobbit.

[AyBee]

Pachydermus said:

AyBee said:

Pachydermus said:

AyBee said:

Not defending the driver's actions in any way, shape or form, but the cyclist really doesn't help himself - the Disco tries to follow the yellow car past and then the yellow car stops so the Disco finds himself up against the cyclist, very bad planning by the Disco, but the first thing the cyclist does is hit the car...

the fact that he can touch the Disco means that the driver has clearly not left a safe gap while passing. Please acquaint yourself with the highway code.

I'm perfectly familiar with the highway code, thanks, but sometimes it's not practical and sometimes it's accidental, if I took the rule to hit every vehicle within arms reach of me, I'd be hitting a lot of cars daily. The window of the Disco is down, the driver can quite easily hear the guy on the bike and yet the cyclist's first word is accompanied by a thud on the Disco. The Disco is actually moving out again to overtake the next cyclist when the camera cyclist thumps it.

not practical? Well how about waiting until it is then?
I was driving behind an artic on saturday that pulled off a similarly dangerous overtake. I followed behind the bikes and stopped in a queue of traffic behind the artic - the same queue that was clearly visible when he started his overtake. The bikes pedalled down to the front of the queue and were off (on green). The lights went red again before artic and I made it to the lights. Bikes were well gone by then. It amazes me the number of idiots who do this. Where do they think they're going to get to in busy London traffic?

You're unlikely to get enough space on the other side of a busy London road to overtake as the highway code suggests, therefore it's not practical. Well done you (genuinely), I wish there were more drivers like you who realise that cycling (certainly in central London) is quicker 99% of the time. The overtake was botched in this case, and whilst the space is uncomfortable, the cyclist isn't in danger, the car driver knows he's there and verbally letting him know he was there would have been sufficient IMO, as soon as you thump a car, you're going to get a completely different reaction from the driver.

[SteveSteveson]

Disastrous said:

Also the feet from a fking Hobbit.

st. Your right! Now all I can see is how hairy his feet are (thank god).

AyBee said:

You're unlikely to get enough space on the other side of a busy London road to overtake as the highway code suggests, therefore it's not practical.

Wait until there is room. It would be quicker to drive on the pavement than wait in traffic, but we don't, so why can't you wait to overtake safely?

Edited by SteveSteveson on Tuesday 2nd June 14:57

[Kell]

dick_turpin said:

shakotan said:

I'll cop flak for this I know, but it's long been my opinion that cyclists have no place on modern roads.

They just don't mix well with the rest of the traffic that uses the same stretch of tarmac. It's not the cyclist's fault, they are just too slow and too vulnerable.

There needs to be either a totally separate infrastructure if used for transport, or restricted to off-road situations for leisure.

If you ban cycles from roads, most of them will just drive instead.
Do you think that will make congestion better or worse?

I honestly can't understand why some people can't grasp the simple and obvious truth that more people cycling is better for everyone - even people who will never, ever cycle.

I think it's more the point that modern roads can't cope with the volume of cars. The more people that cycle, the fewer cars will be in the way. The more cyclists on the road, the quicker your overall journey time will be - regardless of whether or not you get held up by 20 seconds waiting to overtake. For the most part of my commute in central London I'd estimate that I'm quicker than 90% of the traffic on my route - and I'm a slow, fat knacker.

[anonymous-user]

Hugo a Gogo said:

if you own a public-facing business - don't act like a tt in public

Too right. Most reasonable people manage to go through life without trying to run someone over and then threatening to kill them in the street.

Act like that and you deserve it.

[Dammit]

Point to point a bicycle will beat a car through London between 6am to 9pm, it's only peak speeds where the cars have an advantage, which is clearly part of the problem as it meant that Brew-Cafe chap decided that he HAD to get past the bike, so that he could then wait at the lights up ahead as the bike went past again.

That he has been shortchanged in the underpants department is probably a contributory factor for sure, but that said he's also short - the genetic deck was well and truly stacked against him from the get go, so it might be safer to ban him from driving.

[AyBee]

SteveSteveson said:

AyBee said:

You're unlikely to get enough space on the other side of a busy London road to overtake as the highway code suggests, therefore it's not practical.

Wait until there is room. It would be quicker to drive on the pavement than wait in traffic, but we don't, so why can't you wait to overtake safely?

There's a difference between safely and obeying the highway code. Pachydermus told me to acquaint myself with the highway code, I told him it wasn't always practical to obey. You can still overtake safely without obeying the highway code - anyway, this is off topic.

[Pachydermus]

AyBee said:

There's a difference between safely and obeying the highway code. Pachydermus told me to acquaint myself with the highway code, I told him it wasn't always practical to obey. You can still overtake safely without obeying the highway code - anyway, this is off topic.

while the highway code may be extra safe I'd still argue that "safely" is more than an arm's length away unless you want to drive over the top of the cyclist if they come off or have to swerve around a massive pothole/grate/etc while you're passing.

[scubadude]

shakotan said:

They just don't mix well with the rest of the traffic that uses the same stretch of tarmac. It's not the cyclist's fault, they are just too slow and too vulnerable.

What's the least/safest speed difference?

Cyclist (20mph) Vs City traffic (30mph)

Cyclist (20mph) Vs Pedestrians (2-4mph)

Everything (except wheelchairs and prams) on Wheels belongs on the road where they should all obey the rules and behave the same way (drive on the left, follow signs and lights etc)

Cyclists know that, the government believes that and rules of the road are written to state that, anyone thinking otherwise is swimming against the tide- you cannot change it and you will not win, just live with it.

[Kermit power]

scubadude said:

shakotan said:

They just don't mix well with the rest of the traffic that uses the same stretch of tarmac. It's not the cyclist's fault, they are just too slow and too vulnerable.

What's the least/safest speed difference?

Cyclist (20mph) Vs City traffic (30mph)

Cyclist (20mph) Vs Pedestrians (2-4mph)

Everything (except wheelchairs and prams) on Wheels belongs on the road where they should all obey the rules and behave the same way (drive on the left, follow signs and lights etc)

Cyclists know that, the government believes that and rules of the road are written to state that, anyone thinking otherwise is swimming against the tide- you cannot change it and you will not win, just live with it.

I wasn't at all surprised to see from your profile that you're in Dorset, although you could've been anywhere else ruralish...

For the reality of London, try Cyclist (20mph) Vs City traffic (10mph on a good day)!!!

Other than that, I completely agree with you.

[donfisher]

Kell said:

I think it's more the point that modern roads can't cope with the volume of cars. The more people that cycle, the fewer cars will be in the way. The more cyclists on the road, the quicker your overall journey time will be - regardless of whether or not you get held up by 20 seconds waiting to overtake. For the most part of my commute in central London I'd estimate that I'm quicker than 90% of the traffic on my route - and I'm a slow, fat knacker.

I think that's right to a point.

I commute home along the embankment where pretty much a whole lane has been removed for one of the blue highways.

The people who benefit from me (and increasing numbers of cycle commuters) being on my bike are getting a bit more room on the Central Line, The workman in his van, the taxi driver, the delivery driver are possibly seeing longer journey times. The recent developments in cycle infrastructure into zone 1 aren’t benefiting anyone who needs to drive there IMHO, most people I know who opt to go to work on the bike would be on public transport instead, not a car.