"You don't pay road tax" knobend

SamWise1972

I don't think the van driver's initial pull-out was dangerous, only inconsiderate. The cyclist was clearly up for a row after that, and so was the van driver, they both look bad, the driver worse. If I argued about every piece of inconsiderateness this size that happens in my day, on or off the bike, I'd be heading for a long period of stress related illness.

PBo

Kieran_Burns wrote:

QFT and some.

QFT=?

(and TLA is not the correct answer! )

rjsterry

PBo wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

QFT and some.

QFT=?

(and TLA is not the correct answer! )

Quoted For Truth - i.e. "I agree with the above quote"

itsbruce

Quoted for truth

PBo

ta!

mtb-idle

here's the latest video from the same bloke which would appear to confirm the view of those of us that laid the blame for the intial incident/confrontation with the rider rather than the van driver albeit that the van driver was out of order once it kicked off

watch out for stationary cars

jonginge

MTB-Idle wrote:

here's the latest video from the same bloke which would appear to confirm the view of those of us that laid the blame for the intial incident/confrontation with the rider rather than the van driver albeit that the van driver was out of order once it kicked off

watch out for stationary cars

face palm more like

DonDaddyD

MTB-Idle wrote:

here's the latest video from the same bloke which would appear to confirm the view of those of us that laid the blame for the intial incident/confrontation with the rider rather than the van driver albeit that the van driver was out of order once it kicked off

watch out for stationary cars

I have to admit I laughed a little watching it.

There are many thing I wouldn't have done in that video. Gone up the inside of the HGVs for starters and definantely not on a bend.

I also would have gone around the other side of the Polo given the obstruction.

However, I don't see how that video confirms the accusations of the first.

mtb-idle

it indicates to me that the rider appears to go out looking for trouble

notsoblue

MTB-Idle wrote:

here's the latest video from the same bloke which would appear to confirm the view of those of us that laid the blame for the intial incident/confrontation with the rider rather than the van driver albeit that the van driver was out of order once it kicked off

watch out for stationary cars

lol, well that puts things into context...

DonDaddyD

MTB-Idle wrote:

it indicates to me that the rider appears to go out looking for trouble

Huge leap I think you're making there.

5 days worth of commuting and there are a mere two seperate incidents, that aren't the same, where the cyclist has had a meeting encounter gone potentially wrong.

Mate, commuting through South london I could clock double that in 10mins.

All it indicates to me is that the cyclist may have poor judgement or he may be in need of advice. Or he was unlucky on both occasions.

TommyEss

Quite - what a doorknob!

Whinced like nobodies business when he undertook those HGVs - for God's sake just let them past and don't mess with them.

As for the queuing traffic - that's either a ride down the centre line or park up and lump it - you can't just squeeze by aimlessly hoping things will be ok - if the cars squeezing you up in that situation it's because there isn't room for a car plus a bike.

No common sense at all - and I'm glad he crashed like that - hopefully it'll make him be a bit more sensible in future.

amnezia

DonDaddyD wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

it indicates to me that the rider appears to go out looking for trouble

Huge leap I think you're making there.

5 days worth of commuting and there are a mere two seperate incidents, that aren't the same, where the cyclist has had a meeting encounter gone potentially wrong.

Mate, commuting through South london I could clock double that in 10mins.

All it indicates to me is that the cyclist may have poor judgement or he may be in need of advice. Or he was unlucky on both occasions.

It does make him look very inexperienced though.

Watching him cycle up the left of two moving HGVs was cringe-worthy.

petejuk

Classic Vid. Cycling 101- be aware of what's going on around you and pay attention. I hope he's ok, but lesson learnt I think.

northstar

Mate, commuting through South london I could clock double that in 10mins.

+1 to that.

He should learn a valuable lesson (and chalk it down to experience) if you're going to look back and berate people, always always keep one (pref both) eye on what's ahead or just mind your own business.

greg66_tri_v2.0

JonGinge wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

here's the latest video from the same bloke which would appear to confirm the view of those of us that laid the blame for the intial incident/confrontation with the rider rather than the van driver albeit that the van driver was out of order once it kicked off

watch out for stationary cars

face palm more like

+1

Best example of his poor judgment:posting that vid on the internet!

Agent57

rjsterry wrote:

PBo wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

QFT and some.

QFT=?

Quoted For Truth - i.e. "I agree with the above quote"

Sometimes. Other times (and the way I use it), "Quoted For Truth" is used when quoting someone in order to preserve (part of) their post in case they subsequently come back and try to edit it to something else.

itsbruce

Agent57 wrote:

Sometimes. Other times (and the way I use it), "Quoted For Truth" is used when quoting someone in order to preserve (part of) their post in case they subsequently come back and try to edit it to something else.

That seems to be a recent variation, yes. The problem with it is that it is almost always carries completely the opposite meaning to the first usage (in that it is normally applied to text which is not held in respect), but that this is not obvious unless extra context is given.

Agent57

itsbruce wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Sometimes. Other times (and the way I use it), "Quoted For Truth" is used when quoting someone in order to preserve (part of) their post in case they subsequently come back and try to edit it to something else.

That seems to be a recent variation, yes.

Dunno about a recent variation, but you may well be right, relatively speaking. It's the first use of it I encountered (which is why that's the way I use it), but that was at least 5+ years ago. WoW forums FTL.

tailwindhome

I don't do much in the way of 'city' riding so maybe not the best person to comment

However as a very experienced driver I would have assumed the 2nd HGV was leaving a gap in the traffic for a vehicle coming the opposite direction to turn into that junction on the cyclists left.

The cyclist had no idea that this was potential hazard.

He's a lucky boy.

ETA obv I'm talking about the most recent video posted

shouldbeinbed

petejuk wrote:

Classic Vid. Cycling 101- be aware of what's going on around you and pay attention. I hope he's ok, but lesson learnt I think.

I very much doubt it with this plank, good job that truck wasn't turning left too He seems determined to get himself killed or injured either by self important and reckless riding or by making everything his business rather than keeping his eyes on the road.

PMSL at the revenge of Hubris.

davis

TailWindHome wrote:

However as a very experienced driver I would have assumed the 2nd HGV was leaving a gap in the traffic for a vehicle coming the opposite direction to turn into that junction on the cyclists left.

Yup, me too. Of course, drivers shouldn't block junctions out of general courtesy, but I'd have assumed the driver was allowing some oncoming traffic into the residential road on the left.

Having said that, I'm not sure about saying "I wouldn't have undertaken there". From the HGV's positioning, and to a much lesser extent the road type, I'd predict the HGV going straight on, and I believe I'd be able to see any right-turning oncoming traffic. Not undertaking HGVs (or other vehicles really) ain't a bad rule to stick to though..

Well, that's two videos where that cyclist has shown some poor judgement. Being self-righteous doesn't look great if you're wrong.

asprilla

I would have undertaken the HGVs there. It's a clearly marked cycle lane and so I would have taken advantage of that. I would have done it slowly and carefully and I wouldn't have done it if there had been railings on the left. I also would have checked the gap the HGV left before crossing it (the guy does look to his right and I have no idea how quick he going).

His only problem was that he was too busy looking behind instead of infront when he squeezed past the car.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I probably would have undertaken the HGVs. Cautiously.

Generally, if I'm going to do that sort of thing, I want to be able to see up the road before I start so that I can judge whether I can complete the undertake before the traffic starts to move. The traffic curls to the right, so the rider can't see the movement of the queue ahead.

I'd have been prepared to put big money on neither HGV making a left turn into the residential road, so the pass is all about them suddenly moving forward and drifting into the cycle lane whilst I'd be alongside. The absence of a wall/railings/another vehicle gives an escape route of sorts if that had happened.

EKE_38BPM

The undertake of the HGV at the turning was slightly dodgy, but I probably would have done it very cautiously.
Riding forwards in heavy/stationary traffic whilst looking backwards to have a go at someone on a mobile is something I would not do.

He should also learn to ride in a straight line whilst looking over his shoulder or he might ride into the back of a stationary car.

Oh, too late.

He makes himself look like an idiot who has poor bike control and poor judgement,

andy83

all poor riding aside the image looks great, may get myself one just for fun

PBo

Actually, to be fair to the guy, posting that second video with the accompanying title, shows that he isn't taking himself too seriously......