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

[popeyewhite]

AyBee said:

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?

I have no idea, nor do you, nor does anybody else at the moment.

[DoubleD]

I'm surprised that the cyclist could see where he was going with his "see through glasses" on

[KarlMac]

Still no answer as to what heinous act the driver committed to justify criminal damage and threats of violence.

Did they do a bad word or something?

[thelawnet1]

popeyewhite said:

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

Nope, the original Facebook post read

"The cyclist had hit our car with his hand earlier on the passenger side, the only reason I could think he did this, is he possibly felt he didn't have enough room to get through. "

[deadslow]

Why didn't they just turn the steering wheel and kill the moronic lycracist?

[s3fella]

thelawnet1 said:

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.

In your scenario though, the first contact, ie person or object actually hitting is perpetrated by the cyclist.
So anything up to that point is perception, opinion and not actually any form of accident or damage / contact.

All these videos and there are lots of them online) with cyclists hitting, punching, "tapping" thumping moving or stationary motor vehicles, makes me wonder how they would feel if others did that to them? How on earth does any rational human being thing such behaviour is OK?
it's dangerous, potentially criminal damage and a ish thing to do to boot.

FWIW I think there is more to this that meets the eye, and I think she probably f'd and blinded at him, but there is no excuse for hitting a glass window with a lock with a baby asleep in the back. So on balance, I declare the cyclist the biggest in this one

[Mave]

s3fella said:

In your scenario though, the first contact, ie person or object actually hitting is perpetrated by the cyclist.
So anything up to that point is perception, opinion and not actually any form of accident or damage / contact.

All these videos and there are lots of them online) with cyclists hitting, punching, "tapping" thumping moving or stationary motor vehicles, makes me wonder how they would feel if others did that to them? How on earth does any rational human being thing such behaviour is OK?
it's dangerous, potentially criminal damage and a ish thing to do to boot.

And in all those videos on line where motorists have pulled dangerous manouevres on cyclists, do you not wonder how those drivers would feel if others did that to them? How on earth does any rational human being think such behaviour is OK? Its hugely more dangerous than hitting, punching or tapping a moving or stationary car so why is it OK to scare the crap out of someone providing you don't actually make physical contact?

Don't get me wrong, I do not condone the actions of the cyclist in the video one little bit - but if a cyclist tapped or thumped my car for passing too close I would consider myself chastised and take more care next time; I wouldn't go looking to remonstrate with them.

[thelawnet1]

s3fella said:

In your scenario though, the first contact, ie person or object actually hitting is perpetrated by the cyclist.
So anything up to that point is perception, opinion and not actually any form of accident or damage / contact.

It's hardly 'opinion', if someone comes within 3 inches of knocking you off your bike. This is not even perception like 'That car is reversing towards me, I perceive he might not stop before he hits me, so I will beep my horn', in this case this a response to something that has already transpired.

s3fella said:

All these videos and there are lots of them online) with cyclists hitting, punching, "tapping" thumping moving or stationary motor vehicles, makes me wonder how they would feel if others did that to them?

I don't really see the analogy. If I'm sitting in my living room watching a movie with the volume up, and someone taps on the window then I would go and see what they want. I don't think that tapping on a window is inherently a terrible crime.

Cyclists are obviously hitting motor vehicles to draw people's attention to something, typically, I imagine, that the driver came within inches of wiping them out. I'm not sure if you lack empathy to understand why this might cause some distress?

s3fella said:

How on earth does any rational human being thing such behaviour is OK?
it's dangerous, potentially criminal damage and a ish thing to do to boot.

Tapping on someone'e window isn't dangerous, except insomuch as it results in road rage responses.

[DoubleD]

Driver probably drove too close to the cyclist...so they should take more care.

Cyclist reacted to this in an inappropriate way.

That is all there is to say about this

[popeyewhite]

thelawnet1 said:

Nope, the original Facebook post

[ORD]

For the benefit of any cyclists, if you touch my car, you'll get a fking earful. Just as if you touched some other possession of mine. It's damn rude.

[thelawnet1]

ORD said:

For the benefit of any cyclists, if you touch my car, you'll get a fking earful. Just as if you touched some other possession of mine. It's damn rude.

But not as rude as nearly running someone over because you didn't want to wait 10 seconds for a better passing point.

[ORD]

thelawnet1 said:

ORD said:

For the benefit of any cyclists, if you touch my car, you'll get a fking earful. Just as if you touched some other possession of mine. It's damn rude.

But not as rude as nearly running someone over because you didn't want to wait 10 seconds for a better passing point.

Which is literally made up. Nobody has nearly run anybody over. Unbelievable hysteria.

[thelawnet1]

ORD said:

Which is literally made up. Nobody has nearly run anybody over. Unbelievable hysteria.

If you pass someone too close, then yes, you have nearly run them over.

[ORD]

thelawnet1 said:

ORD said:

Which is literally made up. Nobody has nearly run anybody over. Unbelievable hysteria.

If you pass someone too close, then yes, you have nearly run them over.

Let me get this right. If you pass a cyclist closer than the HC suggests, you have nearly run him over? It's binary? Hysteria.

For what it's worth, I hang back and only ever pass cyclists with at least as much space as the HC states. But I think people need to keep their sensible hats on. If a learner driver passes a bit close, a quiet word might be appropriate. Getting all worked up and deciding that she was out to kill you is a bit bonkers.

[Fugazi]

ORD said:

Getting all worked up and deciding that she was out to kill you is a bit bonkers.

So is getting all worked up about somebody touching your car... HTH.

[ORD]

Fugazi said:

ORD said:

Getting all worked up and deciding that she was out to kill you is a bit bonkers.

So is getting all worked up about somebody touching your car... HTH.

In your view. I don't treat people differently on the road to how I would as a pedestrian. I wouldn't poke or push someone for doing something I don't like, so I wouldn't touch anyone's car.

[anonymous-user]

Fugazi said:

ORD said:

Getting all worked up and deciding that she was out to kill you is a bit bonkers.

So is getting all worked up about somebody touching your car... HTH.

You're on the wrong forum. This is Pistonheads. The clue is in the name. MOST of us love cars.

[Downward]

I cycle as much as I drive and I can't see any justification for putting a lock through someones window with a baby inside.

[Mave]

St John Smythe said:

Fugazi said:

ORD said:

Getting all worked up and deciding that she was out to kill you is a bit bonkers.

So is getting all worked up about somebody touching your car... HTH.

You're on the wrong forum. This is Pistonheads. The clue is in the name. MOST of us love cars.

MOST of us love cars, whilst also recognising that natural responses to feeling physical threatened are likely to be stronger than to having our cars touched.