Another "cyclist vs driver" rage story in the news...

[KarlMac]

Pretty sure if the roles had been reversed the helmet cam footage would be everywhere by now.

[wolves_wanderer]

KarlMac said:

Pretty sure if the roles had been reversed the helmet cam footage would be everywhere by now.

Pretty sure if the roles had been reversed PH would have been falling over itself to explain how it was ultimately the cyclist's fault.

[popeyewhite]

yonex said:

popeyewhite said:

And that's how you judge people based your own low standards.

You were there I take it?

• edit but as you were taught to ride on a 'police motorcycle course' that's probably where you learnt your mystic powers

Edited by yonex on Wednesday 21st October 16:22

There's your problem - common sense is 'mystic powers' to you. God help us all.

[SteveSteveson]

popeyewhite said:

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

Did you even read what I wrote? According to the woman the cyclist was pissed off that she did not leave room up the inside, but like other people I would put good money on her having passed to close to him. Not sure how you hold back from someone passing you.

You seem to be out to prove the cyclist is in the wrong. I don't know how you can avoid someone overtaking you. Which is what people are suggesting happened, that they probably overtook far too close, as who is going to be banking on the roof of a car just because there is not room to filter?

Edited by SteveSteveson on Wednesday 21st October 16:37

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

There's your problem - common sense is 'mystic powers' to you. God help us all.

You still weren't there, common sense actually tells us that something pretty decisive happened in the lead up to the incident, shall we ask God?

But. You're the one who struggled with TT'ers weren't you makes perfect sense now...

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 16:39

[Batfink]

I never ride up the inside of traffic. Theres never room.

[mygoldfishbowl]

article said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us."

[JuniorD]

How does this stuff reach actually the news media? Would the victim or someone on their behalf made contact in the first instance? Or perhaps more likely they posted something on social media and the news got wind of it and it went from there? Being a journalist must be a piece of piss nowadays when anything passes as a news story.

Maybe we could speculate about this once we've finshed speculating about what really happened?

[thelawnet1]

She posted it on her Facebook, where it was liked by 2000+ people, then one of those sent it to the press.

[numtumfutunch]

We don't actually know there was a cyclist involved let alone their side of the story

Surely there are witnesses currently talking to the police?

[AyBee]

popeyewhite said:

thelawnet1 said:

popeyewhite said:

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

Young couple? They are 30. Whatever the relevance of that is.

Most sensible, non-entitled people, don't shout at other road users when they are supervising learner drivers and carrying their young child in their car?

As for the learner aspect, there is a bit of a difference between 'that unfortunate learner has just stalled at the lights', and 'you nearly knocked me off'. In the former case, you can play the learner card all day long, in the latter apologies are in order, not 'I'm a learner'.

Not sure whether you're lacking in common sense or just spoiling for an argument. I suspect a bit of both. I've driven cars and motorbikes for 35 years and have learnt to give anything with an L plate a wide berth, this is also how I was taught to ride on a Police motorcycle course. I understand you think you know better though, because this is PH.

It's an interesting point though, obviously you can steer clear of learners if you're behind them, fine, understood. If the learner comes from behind you while you're riding and almost takes you out, do you laugh that off as "oh, he's a learner, that's fine" - I know I wouldn't! If you can't steer a car around a cyclist safely, then you should either be practicing when the roads have nothing on them or on private land away from everything else until you can. "I'm a learner" is an excuse for stalling, driving more slowly or perhaps braking when others wouldn't, not for almost taking out cyclists IMO.

[popeyewhite]

SteveSteveson said:

Did you even read what I wrote?

What you wrote, like many others, was complete supposition. Do you know what that means? It means you made up a list of possible actions and shaped your opinions to fit.

[popeyewhite]

AyBee said:

It's an interesting point though, obviously you can steer clear of learners if you're behind them, fine, understood. If the learner comes from behind you while you're riding and almost takes you out, do you laugh that off as "oh, he's a learner, that's fine" - I know I wouldn't! If you can't steer a car around a cyclist safely, then you should either be practicing when the roads have nothing on them or on private land away from everything else until you can. "I'm a learner" is an excuse for stalling, driving more slowly or perhaps braking when others wouldn't, not for almost taking out cyclists IMO.

The first reported 'action' was the cyclist passing the car, not the other way round. He had the choice not too, but took the risk. There isn't a driving/riding school in the country that wouldn't advise being wary of learners, for very good reasons.

[PHmember]

Cotty said:

Torquey said:

I'm sure there's a lot more to the story and it would have been good to see video footage.

So she "told him to be more considerate" and he smashed her window

Looks like the cyclist was reacting to more than that. She must have been pretty close if the cyclist could touch the roof when she passed.

Why did she 'He's going to catch us up' to her husband? Why was she concerned about the cyclist catching them up again if what she said to him was as polite & calm as reported?

[JonnyVTEC]

Crazy.

Still not as bad as america, seems a 4 year old was killed in a road rage incident today.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/21/four-year-old...

[ZX10R NIN]

Now that is crazy

[thelawnet1]

popeyewhite said:

The first reported 'action' was the cyclist passing the car, not the other way round. He had the choice not too, but took the risk. There isn't a driving/riding school in the country that wouldn't advise being wary of learners, for very good reasons.

No, the first reported action is the cyclist tapping on the car while passing it, presumably in stationary traffic. We don't know why he tapped on it, but it's exceptionally unlikely it was for the reported reason (not enough room to get through), given that he did in fact get through, and from all the millions of annoyed cyclist incidents, 'not being able to get past a car' doesn't figure anywhere on the list of complaints.

Therefore it's likely that the car had ALREADY passed the cyclist prior this, which is why he was tapping on the window, because he was upset with their driving.

Subsequently the learner overtakes the cyclist and the learner's supervisor shouts at the cyclist out of the window.

Then the cyclist catches up again, and he smashes the rear off-side window with his d-lock, while passing in stationary traffic.


So the most probably sequence of events is:

1. Bad driving by learner towards cyclist
2. Cyclist taps on window to inform them of this
3. Woman shouts abuse at cyclist
4. Cyclist goes mental and smashes their window

So although the bad driving, probably unintentional is the original cause, it's the subsequent response to being told off that really creates the situation.

[Jimmm]

JonnyVTEC said:

Crazy.

Still not as bad as america, seems a 4 year old was killed in a road rage incident today.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/21/four-year-old...

Wouldn't have happened if the people in the pickup truck had guns too.

[AyBee]

popeyewhite said:

The first reported 'action' was the cyclist passing the car, not the other way round. He had the choice not too, but took the risk. There isn't a driving/riding school in the country that wouldn't advise being wary of learners, for very good reasons.

And as I stated above, do you really believe that a cyclist squeezes through a gap next to a car and bangs on the roof for no reason at all or do you think the victim who sold her story to the papers perhaps did something prior to that?

[popeyewhite]

thelawnet1 said:

popeyewhite said:

The first reported 'action' was the cyclist passing the car, not the other way round.

No, the first reported action is the cyclist tapping on the car while passing it,

Actually, he "thumped" it. Check the article.