Cyclist posts video of London road rage assault online
Discussion
[quote=martin84]
Cyclists who ride in accordance with the highway code i have no problem with, its the ones who bleat about being a 'vulnerable road user' one minute, and use the pavement when we come to a red light, obviously they dont want to be a road user anymore. Its the ones who advocate breaking the law because riding in accordance with the rules is not convenient to them, if you cant do it properly then dont ride, quite simple. And the attitude of a cyclist smacking someones car being perfectly acceptable is nonsense. Its vandalism, no if, no but, end of.
[quote]
This
I have never seen a car drive down a pavement to jump a red light either . . .
Glad the bloke has been punished anyways, can't go hitting people for no reason. The fact his face has been plastered over the internet is probably worse than the court punishment . .
Cyclists who ride in accordance with the highway code i have no problem with, its the ones who bleat about being a 'vulnerable road user' one minute, and use the pavement when we come to a red light, obviously they dont want to be a road user anymore. Its the ones who advocate breaking the law because riding in accordance with the rules is not convenient to them, if you cant do it properly then dont ride, quite simple. And the attitude of a cyclist smacking someones car being perfectly acceptable is nonsense. Its vandalism, no if, no but, end of.
[quote]
This
I have never seen a car drive down a pavement to jump a red light either . . .
Glad the bloke has been punished anyways, can't go hitting people for no reason. The fact his face has been plastered over the internet is probably worse than the court punishment . .
Edited by Nige_GTI on Thursday 4th August 16:07
Edited by Nige_GTI on Thursday 4th August 17:07
Nige_GTI]artin84 said:
Cyclists who ride in accordance with the highway code i have no problem with, its the ones who bleat about being a 'vulnerable road user' one minute, and use the pavement when we come to a red light, obviously they dont want to be a road user anymore. Its the ones who advocate breaking the law because riding in accordance with the rules is not convenient to them, if you cant do it properly then dont ride, quite simple. And the attitude of a cyclist smacking someones car being perfectly acceptable is nonsense. Its vandalism, no if, no but, end of.
[quote]
This
Nige_GTI said:
I have never seen a car drive down a pavement to jump a red light either . . .
http://gothamist.com/2011/07/22/video_drivers_dumb_diy_exit_to_avoi.php
martin84 said:
And the attitude of a cyclist smacking someones car being perfectly acceptable is nonsense. Its vandalism, no if, no but, end of.
No if, no but, end of?How exactly would someone be committing an act of vandalism if the object of their act is completely undamaged?
Given that most cyclists tend not to go our riding with metal spikes lining their palms, how many do you think will ever actually leave even the slightest trace on a car by giving it a slap to alert the driver?
Nigelgti, some words for you:
1. You still haven't bothered to learn what a road is.
2. You've seen countless cars drive on the pavements.
3. You've seen countless cars drive through stop lights (unless maybe you've only just started driving )
4. It's just possible that your car, like ours and like countless cars everywhere, has parking dings in its side. Who put them there? I'll give you a clue: it wasn't cyclists.
Kermit power said:
Given that most cyclists tend not to go our riding with metal spikes lining their palms, how many do you think will ever actually leave even the slightest trace on a car by giving it a slap to alert the driver?
Very easy to cause a dent or scuff the paint on modern cars - doesn't take a lot. It's more the attitude that cyclists think this is acceptable behaviour though. It doesn't educate drivers, it simply pisses them off.heebeegeetee said:
Nigelgti, some words for you:
1. You still haven't bothered to learn what a road is.
2. You've seen countless cars drive on the pavements.
3. You've seen countless cars drive through stop lights (unless maybe you've only just started driving )
I've seen very few people deliberately drive through lights that have been red for maybe 20-30 seconds - some taxis do this late at night when they think they can get away with it. Many people (incorrectly) go through as the lights are changing to red, but that's not quite the same thing.1. You still haven't bothered to learn what a road is.
2. You've seen countless cars drive on the pavements.
3. You've seen countless cars drive through stop lights (unless maybe you've only just started driving )
I don't think I've ever seen anyone drive along a pavement with all four wheels (utilities/service vehicles and police in pedestrianised areas excepted). Sometimes people will mount two wheels on the kerb in order to get past an obstruction.
heebeegeetee said:
Nigelgti, some words for you:
1. You still haven't bothered to learn what a road is.
2. You've seen countless cars drive on the pavements.
3. You've seen countless cars drive through stop lights (unless maybe you've only just started driving )
4. It's just possible that your car, like ours and like countless cars everywhere, has parking dings in its side. Who put them there? I'll give you a clue: it wasn't cyclists.
Try and be a bit more condescending next time.1. You still haven't bothered to learn what a road is.
2. You've seen countless cars drive on the pavements.
3. You've seen countless cars drive through stop lights (unless maybe you've only just started driving )
4. It's just possible that your car, like ours and like countless cars everywhere, has parking dings in its side. Who put them there? I'll give you a clue: it wasn't cyclists.
In answer to your points
1. A road is a means of travel, largly by motor vehicles (I cannot be bothered to argue)
2. No I haven't
3. Yes I have said this many times - although usually when they are trying to squeeze through an amber
4. Correct - but quite what that has to do with this I don't know . . .
I also believe the info in the following link should be reviewed by a lot of cyclists; http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...
HBGT - Your views are narrow minded, I don't mind a bit of banter, but your attitude towards people who disagree with you is frankly puzzling, I am amazed that natural selection hasn't yet caught up with you . . . .
Edited by Nige_GTI on Friday 5th August 13:00
As a cyclist I am going to be honest and say I have banged someone's car once when they really put my well being in danger. Putting myself in someone else's shoes it was totally wrong and to be honest pretty deplorable. My only defence was that they really did not know what they had done to endanger me so I took huge offence on the spare of the moment. However it was wrong and I would have been very upset if it was done to my car. My point is hitting someone's car is wrong whatever the circumstance but I can sympathise with the reasons for it.
will_ said:
No, it's not. It's all anecdote, and sweeping generalisation. Do you think there aren't countless similar comments that could be made about drivers?
It's amusing when people say "I'm not anti-cyclists, but....." and then list all sorts of spurious reasons why cyclists are the badies, whilst failing to accept that cars and drivers represent far more danger and inconvenience than cyclists ever could.
"similar comments about drivers...." It's amusing when people say "I'm not anti-cyclists, but....." and then list all sorts of spurious reasons why cyclists are the badies, whilst failing to accept that cars and drivers represent far more danger and inconvenience than cyclists ever could.
I'm sure there is.....but we're talking about cyclists here!.....
I spend a lot of time on the road and trust me....bus drivers, white man van, cyclists, bikes, volvo drivers, bmw drivers......there is a reason why they've got a "reputation" ....
BECAUSE the majority live up to their reputation!
Kermit power said:
No if, no but, end of?
How exactly would someone be committing an act of vandalism if the object of their act is completely undamaged?
Given that most cyclists tend not to go our riding with metal spikes lining their palms, how many do you think will ever actually leave even the slightest trace on a car by giving it a slap to alert the driver?
It wont be long before people start claiming against cyclists for damage which was already on their car. Dont say you werent warned. And whether the cyclist damages it or not its still not acceptable to hit other peoples property. And for balance i'll include the idiots in car parks who cannot park correctly in the first place then open their door to hit other peoples cars because they 'didnt have enough room'. If they learned to park they wouldve done. Even if the driver is in the wrong, hitting the persons car is only going to further enflame the situation and lead to more instances like cyclists being punched in the face like in this instance. Like the one who shouted obscenities at me for no reason, he's lucky it was me in the car and not a less-calm individual who wouldve got out and tied him to the nearest tree. How exactly would someone be committing an act of vandalism if the object of their act is completely undamaged?
Given that most cyclists tend not to go our riding with metal spikes lining their palms, how many do you think will ever actually leave even the slightest trace on a car by giving it a slap to alert the driver?
Ive only ever been in a car on one occasion when a cyclist thought fit to bang on the car. I was a passenger in my mothers car, couple of years ago and we're going through a town and traffic was fine. Two lanes in each direction, cycle lanes on both sides and we're in the left hand lane as some total idiot in a car pulls out of a side road on the right, cuts across the Transit Connect van which was just in front of us on our right which forces him to go left and my mother reacts quickly to hit the brakes and go left also to save smashing into him which in turn cuts up the cyclist who was about 15 yards behind us. We blocked off his route but he wasnt in any danger but still felt the need to bang on the boot of the car, then skip up onto the pavement and continue. He didnt seem to realise it was evasive action by TWO very alert motorists to avoid a three vehicle pileup. The bang was so loud it scared the s
t out of my mum who thought something had fallen off the car or something!And ive just realised that was the most boring story anybodies ever told.
Edited by martin84 on Friday 5th August 03:13
spacegrey335 said:
will_ said:
No, it's not. It's all anecdote, and sweeping generalisation. Do you think there aren't countless similar comments that could be made about drivers?
It's amusing when people say "I'm not anti-cyclists, but....." and then list all sorts of spurious reasons why cyclists are the badies, whilst failing to accept that cars and drivers represent far more danger and inconvenience than cyclists ever could.
"similar comments about drivers...." It's amusing when people say "I'm not anti-cyclists, but....." and then list all sorts of spurious reasons why cyclists are the badies, whilst failing to accept that cars and drivers represent far more danger and inconvenience than cyclists ever could.
I'm sure there is.....but we're talking about cyclists here!.....
I spend a lot of time on the road and trust me....bus drivers, white man van, cyclists, bikes, volvo drivers, bmw drivers......there is a reason why they've got a "reputation" ....
BECAUSE the majority live up to their reputation!
We're talking about an interaction between a cyclist and a driver.
To fling mud a cyclists whilst ignoring the fact that cars and drivers are far more dangerous is to hold such a blinkered view as to be pointless.
will_ said:
To fling mud a cyclists whilst ignoring the fact that cars and drivers are far more dangerous is to hold such a blinkered view as to be pointless.
Of course a car is potentially more dangerous, it's considerably larger, heavier and faster than a push bike, and has blind spots. What realises this danger is the piss poor attitude of cyclists that feel they have to right to do almost anything they want on the road, and that every other road user should be making way for them rather than accepting their share of the responsibility.Riding defensively will minimise the danger - using a modicum of observation and forward planning means you can anticipate the actions of other road users and position yourself to minimise the danger. Obviously this doesn't excuse car drivers from their duties, but as the more vulnerable road user a cyclist should be concentrating more on roadcraft than on belligerent acts against car drivers. Having a near miss and starting a bit of road rage helps neither party in either the short or long term.
Mr2Mike said:
Of course a car is potentially more dangerous, it's considerably larger, heavier and faster than a push bike, and has blind spots. What realises this danger is the piss poor attitude of cyclists that feel they have to right to do almost anything they want on the road, and that every other road user should be making way for them rather than accepting their share of the responsibility.
What "realises this danger" is, in my experience, largely not the "piss poor attitude of cyclists" and rather the incompetence of drivers (if we're going into sweeping generalisations again). I don't know any cyclists who "feel they have the right to do almost anything they want on the road". If you're about to mention red lights, I'll happily mention speed limits, mobile phone use, failing to indicate, failing to check mirrors, sewerving accross lanes of traffic and - just for fun - red lights too.For the danger to be realised someone has to make a mistake - why do you say that the cyclist is the one making the mistake (presumably with their "piss poor" attitude) when all that I have read shows that cyclists are responsible for a very small percentage of bike/car collisions?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff