To the cyclist of Superhighway 7 tonight

W1

kelsen wrote:

W1 wrote:

Agreed. I used to be fairly "ragey" and then realised it got you absolutely no-where apart from a slanging match where neither party leaves any the wiser.

W1 wrote:

Well this is another DDD attention wh*ring thread - you're kindly making all my points for me. You LOVE the attention, you just pretend you don't so you can chuck out a few internet warrior-esque threats. Come on DDD, admit it (again) - you love this sort of stuff.

Does it eat you up that no-one really commented on your enormous "this is the opinion of the awesome DDD" post in the "students" thread, that must have taken you all morning to type? That your "FACTS" are so often far from facts?

It's not that I follow you DDD, it's that you post so much (and so often) that almost every thread is "your" thread (and you say so much that's wrong that I can't help but put you right). It's also fun to watch you tie yourself in knots and then get your handbag out. It's irresistible.

As for Sewinman - meh. Apart from supporting violence and vandalism I can't recall anything you've said. That's real irony - the most noticeable thing about you is that you never say anything noticeable.....

I see what you mean

That's nothing. I didn't even tap on the window.

fatherted

I'm with maxticate, pbo and monkeypump.

and please, please, throw that bl00dy headcam in the bin, find some friends and go and enjoy your cycling instead of acting like some velo vigilante

mybreakfastconsisted

Maxticate wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Agree 100% with the points made by PBo and gtvlusso.

I would also add (and it's been said before) that the people who ride with helmet cams and/or write blogs about this kind of thing mysteriously seem to 'find' more incidents than the rest of us. Coincidence? I think not.

What would you do if you saw a driver bully a female cyclist then go to confront her? Why do you imagine he got out of his car?

I didn't see any bullying, just a close overtake precipitated by the female cyclist changing lane without looking and /or indicating.

The female cyclist then chose to confront him by tapping on his car. I doubt he would have stepped out of his car at all without that action.

She did not change lane. The cycle lane is too narrow for two cyclists to pass. Look at the traffic, the driver carried out a dangerous manoever that saved him precisely zero time, one minute he's in such a rush he passes to close to a cyclist, then he's got all the time in the world to stop, get out and have a discussion!


She was overtaking a cyclist. HC Rule 163, leave as much room for a cyclist as you would a car, the driver passed unnecessarily close when he had loads of room on his offside. There was no need to pass so close. The first time was sloppy, the second time was deliberate to my mind. Punishing another cyclist for daring to be...what? On the same road as the driver?

Nobody swore at the driver, both the woman and gaz were perfectly polite, and the driver responds with foul abuse even when he knows he's on camera.

I've heard somewhere that getting out of the car in road rage cases is a clear example of escalation, there was no need for it, there was no need for the swearing, there was no need for the abuse from the driver, there was no need for either overtake.

Rule #1 in a road rage situation. NEVER get out of your car.

snooks

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

She was overtaking a cyclist. HC Rule 163, leave as much room for a cyclist as you would a car, the driver passed unnecessarily close when he had loads of room on his offside.

OK the driver didn't follow the HC when he overtook....but did she? No, she neither checked before leaving the cycle lane and commenced her manoeuvre, or signalled before moving out - (rule 63) she also didn't leave the cyclist she was overtaking enough room rule 163. (linked to from rule 67 for cyclists)

Lots of wrongs still don't make either of them right

Maxticate

She did not change lane. The cycle lane is too narrow for two cyclists to pass

.

She was overtaking a cyclist. HC Rule 163, leave as much room for a cyclist as you would a car, the driver passed unnecessarily close when he had loads of room on his offside.

Ok what about this rule then?

[Law HA 1835 sect 72]
63

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

mybreakfastconsisted

Do you think the driver would have left more room had she thrown a life-saver?

I doubt that a driver who gets out of a car to hurl abuse at people being perfectly polite and calm would care less about whether or not a cyclist checked behind them.

Broadly, a driver should leave enough room for a cyclist so that were the cyclist to topple sideways the vehicle would not hit them.

The driver was reckless in the first overtake, homicidal in the second.

Would you really indicate every time you overtake another cyclist?

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

She did not change lane. The cycle lane is too narrow for two cyclists to pass. Look at the traffic, the driver carried out a dangerous manoever that saved him precisely zero time, one minute he's in such a rush he passes to close to a cyclist, then he's got all the time in the world to stop, get out and have a discussion!

The driver was presumably driving at a constant speed in the main bit of the lane, not carrying out an overtake, Irrespective of whether there was a CS or not - I agree a cyclist has every right to be in the same lane sure - you don't get to just pull out without looking or indicating, surely?

She was overtaking a cyclist. HC Rule 163, leave as much room for a cyclist as you would a car, the driver passed unnecessarily close when he had loads of room on his offside. There was no need to pass so close. The first time was sloppy, the second time was deliberate to my mind. Punishing another cyclist for daring to be...what? On the same road as the driver?

She overtook without checking or signalling. by moving out, she made the pass too close. It probably would have been a shade too close if she had held the lane, I did say that in my first post - but it would hardly have been crime of the century.

Nobody has defended the second overtake. And if i was guessing, he was punishing cyclists for just having ganged up on him, unreasonably.

Nobody swore at the driver, both the woman and gaz were perfectly polite, and the driver responds with foul abuse even when he knows he's on camera.

Is English your first language? Neither cyclist didn't swore, but were very strident and confrontational in tone. The driver finally swore in frustration.....

I've heard somewhere that getting out of the car in road rage cases is a clear example of escalation, there was no need for it, there was no need for the swearing, there was no need for the abuse from the driver, there was no need for either overtake.

Rule #1 in a road rage situation. NEVER get out of your car.

Surely that's a rule if you are being attacked....
Rule # 0.5 don't tap on a motorist's window.....?

Maxticate

I may not indicate but I would at least check for myself to see if I was going to move into the path of something that may possibly kill me.

I take responsibility for my own safety, that responsibility means I make it my business not to put myself in positions where I could be hurt. I always lifesave check before moving out, it's ingrained self preservation.

You are very keen on pointing out the drivers responsibility to give the cyclist room. What if she had taken responsibility for her own safety and made a lifesave check then moved out after the car had passed her? The situation and all the ensuing nastiness would have been completely avoided and she would never have been in danger.

Do you think how this situation played out has improved the relationship between that car driver and cyclists in general. Clearly not judging from his actions after the incident. Will he be sympathetic in the future to the needs of cyclists. I think probably not.

99.999% of car drivers out there are normal everyday people trying to go about their business. They will drive with greater or lesser degrees of ability. We only ride like they are all stupid and are trying to kill us so that when the inevitable mistakes happen we are ready to react to the situation having been expecting it. As the party that is likely to come of worst in any incident regardless of blame this is only sensible. This does not mean however that all car drivers out there travel with the intention of injuring cyclists.

mybreakfastconsisted

The cyclist was following the same, straight line for 6 seconds before the overtake.

The driver had a clear stretch of road on his offside.

"Is English your first language? Neither cyclist didn't swore,
"

Further comment superfluous.

Holyzeus

fatherted wrote:

I'm with maxticate, pbo and monkeypump.

and please, please, throw that bl00dy headcam in the bin, find some friends and go and enjoy your cycling instead of acting like some velo vigilante

+1

snooks

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Do you think the driver would have left more room had she thrown a life-saver?

I doubt that a driver who gets out of a car to hurl abuse at people being perfectly polite and calm would care less about whether or not a cyclist checked behind them.

Broadly, a driver should leave enough room for a cyclist so that were the cyclist to topple sideways the vehicle would not hit them.

The driver was reckless in the first overtake, homicidal in the second.

Would you really indicate every time you overtake another cyclist?

This isn't about what I would do, but you can't say the driver should have left room for the cyclist, when the cyclist herself didn't afford the cyclist she was overtaking the same courtesy.

Why do you believe that the car should have left 1 cyclist room, but convienently forget that the overtaking cyclist should have left the cyclist she was over taking the same amount of room? They are both bound by the same guidelines, they are both supposed to be following the Highway Code.

Fact is that if she would have followed the highway code, looked behind then either a) seen it was clear, signalled and overtaken the cyclist by going into the primary, or b) seen there was a car about to overtake. Then none of this would have happened.

Or to paraphrase: Broadly, a cyclist should leave enough room for another cyclist so that were the inside cyclist to topple sideways the overtaking cyclist would not hit them.

I'm not disputing that the driver was reckless, but the incident was completely avoidable if the overtaking cyclist would have shoulder checked, as cyclists we have to look after ourselves

gaz545

I'll try and answer a few of the posts here.
As soon as someone steps out of their vehicle to confront someone else, then they are taking an aggresive stance. I purposefully put my bike and my self between him and his car to stop him from approaching the woman. I have no idea what his intentions are, and i'm not going to let him get near to her.

Whilst yes, her cycling wasn't the best. It could eaisly be argued that his driving wasn't as well. She is clearly trying to overtake the cyclist in front. Why did he feel the need to get past her so urgently? Why couldn't he read the road ahead and see that she might need some room to move around the cyclist safely.

It's often said that the use of an idicator on a car just means that you know they work, it doesn't always show the true intentions of the car driver. And thus when you are cycling you have to make sure you are riding in a deffensive but assertive manor to make sure you take control of your safety in each situtation. But why does this only apply to us cyclists? why can't drivers do the same?

If you where driving his car and in his position, what would you have done?


To those that say i should ditch the camera and get a life. Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

Monkeypump

PBo wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Agree 100% with the points made by PBo and gtvlusso.

I would also add (and it's been said before) that the people who ride with helmet cams and/or write blogs about this kind of thing mysteriously seem to 'find' more incidents than the rest of us. Coincidence? I think not.

What would you do if you saw a driver bully a female cyclist then go to confront her? Why do you imagine he got out of his car?

1) How did he bully her? she pulled out in front of him.
2) How would he know it was a female?
3) Who knocked on the window and began the confrontation?
4) He got out the car too see why she knocked on his window?

All of these.

PBo wrote:

5) Why can't you change your tedious, anti-car, myopic record?

And certainly this. Please.

With regard to what I'd do if I saw a bully actually bullying (rather than reacting to a less than ideal situation for all concerned) - of course I would intervene. But this is something else that you've dressed up to support your own blinkered view of the world.

el_presidente

Any London commuter will experience overtakes that close 10, 20, 30 times every commute. To be honest I don't think it is that dangerous in typical 20mph rush hour traffic. (at 50mph on the open road it's a different matter).

Start tapping on windows for that sort of driving and you are escalating an issue that you're never going to win. Keep your powder dry for the really dangerous ones.

W1

troll feed Don't the.

It really is utterly futile.

Maxticate

gaz545 wrote:

Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

Why do you use a camera, why do you put the videos on YouTube and what results have you achieved?

Genuinely interested.

el_presidente

Maxticate wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

Why do you use a camera, why do you put the videos on YouTube and what results have you achieved?

Genuinely interested.

it makes him feel like a big man x3

gtvlusso

gaz545 wrote:

To those that say i should ditch the camera and get a life. Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

What results? The result of this is pointing out a "potentially" innocent man and his reg number on an international scale.....Guilt before innocence. I think the view of the comments on here are that:

A, She did something stupid without looking
B, He made the best of a bad job by her
C, She then taps on window
D, Bloke gets out - may have been to apologise or something or even that his door window does not work - we don't know.
E, You intervene
F, It escalates
G, He is then annoyed and pulls a silly move to prove a point....

Blinding! Your "diplomacy" could have hurt someone.....he wasn't annoyed at first!

If you had filmed me, I would be looking into legal proceedings against you - though I doubt there is any course of action to take. So, this guy is now guilty down to your editing and biased perspective.

How very fair of you - get a life loser.....

will3

You got scalped by a girl.

FWIW this is why I don't read the commute footage stickie. It's full of folks sayin "ooo look at 'im doing that" and generally not enjoying themselves.,

You never see anything happy there.

vorsprung

Monkeypump wrote:

Agree 100% with the points made by PBo and gtvlusso.

Me also.

I get passed at that sort of distance by vehicles doing 30mph+ regularly. Now that's scary. The video shows a storm in a teacup

Pufftmw

Maxticate wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

Why do you use a camera, why do you put the videos on YouTube and what results have you achieved?

Genuinely interested.

I can't speak for Gaz but the reason I use a camera is that IF/WHEN someone pulls out in front of me and knocks me the ground and severely unjures me for the rest of my life, then I potentially have evidence as to what occured - which may or may not show blame/culpability on my side - in order that I might be able to seek compensation (if appropriate) or get on with my life and rue my being a prat.

Why do I stick on Youtube? Entertainment

Results? Not the question for me...

Monkeypump

Pufftmw wrote:

Maxticate wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

Clearly you have no idea why i have and use a camera or why i post videos on youtube. Or the results i have gotten from doing so.

Why do you use a camera, why do you put the videos on YouTube and what results have you achieved?

Genuinely interested.

I can't speak for Gaz but the reason I use a camera is that IF/WHEN someone pulls out in front of me and knocks me the ground and severely unjures me for the rest of my life, then I potentially have evidence as to what occured - which may or may not show blame/culpability on my side - in order that I might be able to seek compensation (if appropriate) or get on with my life and rue my being a prat.

Why do I stick on Youtube? Entertainment

Results? Not the question for me...

Jeez, glass-half-empty anyone?

And you'd happily submit video evidence if it showed you to be in the wrong? Yeah, I bet you would...

jzed

Gaz - any chance of rear cam footage before she comes past you? Chances are she was weaving in and out of traffic on the way down?

Pufftmw

"Monkeypump wrote:

Jeez, glass-half-empty anyone?

And you'd happily submit video evidence if it showed you to be in the wrong? Yeah, I bet you would...

You're probably right but I would know what had happened

I had the (mis)fortune to be married/with a Plaintiff Personal Injury Solicitor for 15 years so I guess it rubs off. I've met some of her clients who are generally amputees or wheel-chair bound due to accidents where they are not at fault - pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists included.

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Further comment superfluous.

edited for politeness

PBo

W1 wrote:

troll feed Don't the.

It really is utterly futile.

I honestly don't think brekkie is a troll in the true, "deliberately provoke/wind everyone up" way.

I believe they have a very narrow, firmly held belief, but don't give due consideration to any evidence that disagrees with that.

_Brun_

It's fail all round really isn't it?

The worst is that the two people in the middle of the whole thing (regardless of any fault) have absolutely no idea it has been immortalised on youtube.

Poor form, in my opinion. Since plenty of other 'fellow cyclists' think likewise, maybe Gaz would consider removing it?

fuelex

Monkeypump wrote:

PBo wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Agree 100% with the points made by PBo and gtvlusso.

I would also add (and it's been said before) that the people who ride with helmet cams and/or write blogs about this kind of thing mysteriously seem to 'find' more incidents than the rest of us. Coincidence? I think not.

What would you do if you saw a driver bully a female cyclist then go to confront her? Why do you imagine he got out of his car?

1) How did he bully her? she pulled out in front of him.
2) How would he know it was a female?
3) Who knocked on the window and began the confrontation?
4) He got out the car too see why she knocked on his window?

All of these.

PBo wrote:

5) Why can't you change your tedious, anti-car, myopic record?

And certainly this. Please.

With regard to what I'd do if I saw a bully actually bullying (rather than reacting to a less than ideal situation for all concerned) - of course I would intervene. But this is something else that you've dressed up to support your own blinkered view of the world.

+at least 10

It's London, its full of cars, look where you're going and take some responsibility instead of blaming it all on the nasty car drivers.

itboffin

Surely the end result of confronting every driver you consider to be driving badly would be either you getting killed or seriously injured or eventually going totally postal yourself?

You don't own any high power rifles with telescopic sights do you? :P

Personally i've stopped getting angry 99.9999% time because 1 it happens to often and 2 it ruins my day oh and 3 I'm ashamed at the shocking behaviour of my fellow cyclist.

PBo

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

"Is English your first language? Neither cyclist didn't swore,
"

Further comment superfluous.

shot myself in the foot with poor editing. But hey, just pick up on that, it's easier than trying to put a coherent answer together.

my point was that just because they didn't swear, doesn't mean they were polite. In fact, just listening to the tone - even if you couldn't understand the words - would probably tell you that.

I think you are somewhat mixed up about your road rage rule 1. That is advice clearly aimed at the recipient of road rage, and is advice about not escalating the situation. But you frame the driver as the aggressor not the recipient AND still slag him off for behaviour which only the recipient can be guilty of!!! So which is it?

The cyclist was following the same, straight line for 6 seconds before the overtake.

We have the white line of the superhighway and the time stamp to help us assess this.

18 sec - cyclist first comes into vision outside lane
19 sec - crosses into lane
20 sec - cycles over "7" of CS7
21 sec - drifts to line
22 sec - just on line
23 sec - on/slightly over line - car just in vision
24 sec - just over line, car overtakes

so, the cyclist was on a straight line for more like 3secs - but not straight as in parallel to the kerb/cycle lane, but "in a straight line from one point to another - where one point is inside the cycle lane, and the other is outside". Otherwise known as "drifting outside".

The driver had a clear stretch of road on his offside.

Do you mean the lane for traffic coming in the other direction? He couldn't use it because a car coming the opposite way was partly in it just before the overtake? (easier to see at 29 sec, during the replay)