The "Sh*t Driving Caught On Cam" Thread Vol II
Discussion
jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of 
s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
Is that how ped crossings work? I must be out of date. There were peds going in both directions, and you are claiming that it's fine for vehicles to weave and swerve across the ped crossing, at a fair old speed too?s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Or did you not see the ped going from left to right as well?
jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
You are supposed to stop and give way to pedestrians while they are on the crossing. The Cyclist should not cross until the pedestrian steps onto the pavement. The cyclist is a prat and is ignoring the crossing..s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Fish said:
jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
You are supposed to stop and give way to pedestrians while they are on the crossing. The Cyclist should not cross until the pedestrian steps onto the pavement. The cyclist is a prat and is ignoring the crossing..s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Whilst I don't condone cycling past someone at speed coming within a whisker of them is a wise thing to do, I don't really have a problem with them slowing down and cycling through when there is a suitable gap.
Bennet said:
It may be more difficult than you think, since that wasn't a merge in the sense we'd usually use that word.
I'd have let him in as well, but there was never really a gap there. The van driver should have held back when it became clear what was happening. It's interesting to me that he, and you, it would seem, think he had a right to that space.
I done thunk it was a merge point I'd have let him in as well, but there was never really a gap there. The van driver should have held back when it became clear what was happening. It's interesting to me that he, and you, it would seem, think he had a right to that space.
. It's still good manners to let him in though, I'll go with "when two cocks meet" in this case.jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
I was always taught to stop if there are pedestrians anywhere on a zebra crossing, even if they were clearly on the other side of the road and walking away, although when there is an island in the middle, as here, you can treat the them as two separate crossings. Still there was not one but two peds on that crossing and the cyclist should absolutely have stopped. If you were crossing a road and a soon as you had passed the edge of a car they sped off, would you be impressed? s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Now, whether the ped should have gone out of their way to start a confrontation is highly debatable - but cyclists lack of respect for red lights and particularly pedestrian crossings in London is a genuine problem and I can why someone could be frustated enough to do something like this.
Bluedot said:
Fish said:
jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
You are supposed to stop and give way to pedestrians while they are on the crossing. The Cyclist should not cross until the pedestrian steps onto the pavement. The cyclist is a prat and is ignoring the crossing..s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Whilst I don't condone cycling past someone at speed coming within a whisker of them is a wise thing to do, I don't really have a problem with them slowing down and cycling through when there is a suitable gap.
Krikkit said:
Bluedot said:
Fish said:
jamei303 said:
Ped is being an arse. The requirement is for the cyclist to give way, not to stop. If the ped had kept going the cyclist would have simply passed behind them. The ped is of course entitled to suddenly change direction on the crossing, but it's a bit of s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.
You are supposed to stop and give way to pedestrians while they are on the crossing. The Cyclist should not cross until the pedestrian steps onto the pavement. The cyclist is a prat and is ignoring the crossing..s trick. I bet the ped wouldn't have tried that with a car.Whilst I don't condone cycling past someone at speed coming within a whisker of them is a wise thing to do, I don't really have a problem with them slowing down and cycling through when there is a suitable gap.
I was more pointing out that if there is a suitable gap for cyclists then as long as they slow down and take care then a bit of common sense can be applied.
Fish said:
You are supposed to stop and give way to pedestrians while they are on the crossing. The Cyclist should not cross until the pedestrian steps onto the pavement. The cyclist is a prat and is ignoring the crossing..
There is no requirement to stop, only to give way to pedestrians actually on the crossing. In a car giving way is likely to mean stopping, but for a bicycle stopping may not be necessary.The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997:
25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
but also:
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
Ped is in the wrong
25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
but also:
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
Ped is in the wrong
jamei303 said:
The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997:
25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
but also:
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
Ped is in the wrong
I guess you are a cyclist then??25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
but also:
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
Ped is in the wrong
Would you be thinking exactly the same if that was a motorbike?
Some Gump said:
why are people talking about "peds"? It makes you sound like mentallists.
Bloke on bike is a knob. Walker is a knob. Cyclist was a knob first (also FPKW), so he gets mrore of the blame, maybe 65:35. Both would have had better days if they weren't cocks.
Agreed. The pedestrian was merely a bit of a stroker, whereas the cyclist was a world class onanist. Presumably if the cyclist had demonstrated some common sense and courtesy he would have risked beating his PB on Strava...Bloke on bike is a knob. Walker is a knob. Cyclist was a knob first (also FPKW), so he gets mrore of the blame, maybe 65:35. Both would have had better days if they weren't cocks.
Also agree about referring to "peds".
Some Gump said:
why are people talking about "peds"? It makes you sound like mentallists.
Bloke on bike is a knob. Walker is a knob. Cyclist was a knob first (also FPKW), so he gets mrore of the blame, maybe 65:35. Both would have had better days if they weren't cocks.
Probably happens all the time and it was just this lycra clad bellend in particular that bore the brunt of the bloke's frustrations. Happened all the time when I was working in Holborn, was half tempted to kick them off and teach them a lesson but I am not a complete knob, just a partial one.Bloke on bike is a knob. Walker is a knob. Cyclist was a knob first (also FPKW), so he gets mrore of the blame, maybe 65:35. Both would have had better days if they weren't cocks.
Janesy B said:
Probably happens all the time and it was just this lycra clad bellend in particular that bore the brunt of the bloke's frustrations. Happened all the time when I was working in Holborn, was half tempted to kick them off and teach them a lesson but I am not a complete knob, just a partial one.
I got hit by cycle rider in Oxford Circus one day by exactly the same thing that happened in the video posted. He just rode into my leg and fell off. He was a probably bit of a pussy though as he just got back up and rode off rather than giving it the verbal. I had to walk around for the rest of the day with people asking me why I had a rubber tyre mark on my leg.Edited by ashleyman on Friday 30th September 11:54
imdeman87 said:
Undertaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Vqwh7sD-A
Looks more like a Paramedic Ambulance and I don't think you would get a body in the Fiesta although it is blackEdited by imdeman87 on Thursday 29th September 22:43
😜
Talking of cyclists..... @3:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgIYGbM4QI#t=221.578167
Ha ha ha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgIYGbM4QI#t=221.578167
Ha ha ha!
Edited by mattlad on Friday 30th September 12:56
Edited by mattlad on Friday 30th September 12:57
mattlad said:
For some reason your link doesn't work:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgIYGbM4QI#t=221....
I presume the cyclist was all ready to blame the driver when he stopped...
Johnnytheboy said:
mattlad said:
For some reason your link doesn't work:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgIYGbM4QI#t=221....
I presume the cyclist was all ready to blame the driver when he stopped...
Edited to say your link seems to work......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff