For once I'd understand a grasser up

[Jonnyboy]

Unbelievable! Hope the bugger gets done


http://travel.aol.co.uk/2014/01/28/video-motorist-punches-cyclist-london-road-rage-attack/?icid=maing-grid7|uk|dl2|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D239657

[Hibs Class]

Shouldn't be difficult to trace, I'd have thought. Also read the first related story at the foot of the article - :faf:

[LaMotta]

Obviously the driver shouldn't have smacked him, but what a FUD that cyclist is.

[Jonnyboy]

Obviously the driver shouldn't have smacked him, but what a FUD that cyclist is.

How so. He's correctly placed in a cyclists only box at the lights. The car driver moves forward and the cyclist tells him off - rightly so. Car then moves off, running over the cyclists foot in the process. Yes the cyclist went ape5hit but who wouldn't in those circumstances?

BTW I don't cycle and I think cyclists can be a bloody nuisance at times but I wouldn't run over one's foot or get out of my car and punch him!

[Jonnyboy]

Shouldn't be difficult to trace, I'd have thought. Also read the first related story at the foot of the article - :faf:

Hard luck on the boy :greengrin

[LaMotta]

How so. He's correctly placed in a cyclists only box at the lights. The car driver moves forward and the cyclist tells him off - rightly so. Car then moves off, running over the cyclists foot in the process. Yes the cyclist went ape5hit but who wouldn't in those circumstances?

BTW I don't cycle and I think cyclists can be a bloody nuisance at times but I wouldn't run over one's foot or get out of my car and punch him!



Yes audi was wrong going into the bike bit, but I disagree that the Cyclist should tell him off - its not up to Cyclists to police the roads. ( i dont think he actually ran over his foot btw - if he did it was some recovery to cycle after the car at that speed :greengrin).

Cyclist sought out confrontation, not once but TWICE and then got attacked for his aggressive behaviour! If ive ever seen a case of someone asking for a punch this is it ( not that I condone it mind :greengrin)

[Jonnyboy]

Yes audi was wrong going into the bike bit, but I disagree that the Cyclist should tell him off - its not up to Cyclists to police the roads. ( i dont think he actually ran over his foot btw - if he did it was some recovery to cycle after the car at that speed :greengrin).

Cyclist sought out confrontation, not once but TWICE and then got attacked for his aggressive behaviour! If ive ever seen a case of someone asking for a punch this is it ( not that I condone it mind :greengrin)

We'll have to agree to differ VP :greengrin

Cyclist was within his rights to point out the first part of moving forward into the box. Aggression came at second part after he'd run his foot over. It's sore but it won't kill you and if yer dander is up you'll peddle like buggery to catch up :greengrin

[LaMotta]

We'll have to agree to differ VP :greengrin

Cyclist was within his rights to point out the first part of moving forward into the box. Aggression came at second part after he'd run his foot over. It's sore but it won't kill you and if yer dander is up you'll peddle like buggery to catch up :greengrin


The fact I drive an Audi plays no part in my stance on this :devil:

[Jonnyboy]

The fact I drive an Audi plays no part in my stance on this :devil:

Vorsprung etc etc :greengrin

[Beefster]

If cyclists are going to take it upon themselves to start bitching at every driver who does something wrong, they should expect drivers to pull them up for cycling through red lights, cycling on the pavement etc etc.

PS I'm a cyclist.

[Sylar]

The fact I drive an Audi plays no part in my stance on this :devil:

It's not white with a KW13 CWA registration plate, is it? :greengrin

[Jonnyboy]

If cyclists are going to take it upon themselves to start bitching at every driver who does something wrong, they should expect drivers to pull them up for cycling through red lights, cycling on the pavement etc etc.

PS I'm a cyclist.

Fair points Beefster but I think it happened in London where cyclist fatalities are horrendous. Maybe the guy on the bike was mindful of that?

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes audi was wrong going into the bike bit, but I disagree that the Cyclist should tell him off - its not up to Cyclists to police the roads. ( i dont think he actually ran over his foot btw - if he did it was some recovery to cycle after the car at that speed :greengrin).

Cyclist sought out confrontation, not once but TWICE and then got attacked for his aggressive behaviour! If ive ever seen a case of someone asking for a punch this is it ( not that I condone it mind :greengrin)

Sad world we live in if telling someone off for infringing on your rights merits a punch in the puss.

[RyeSloan]

Sad world we live in if telling someone off for infringing on your rights merits a punch in the puss.

It wasn't a telling off tho was it...and infringing rights is putting it a bit strongly.

The cyclist was very aggressive the second time...if you charge upto someone and start screaming and pointing at them then you are asking for a reaction I would say.

The Audi was wrong to pull into the cycle box, the cyclist was hardly a saint for the way he went about pointing that out...I'd call it about evens really :-)

[Hibrandenburg]

The cyclist had his foot run over by the guy in the Audi after the cyclist complained about the the driver moving into the cycle box. I'd say infringing his rights is putting it lightly, more like assault. Cyclists can be a pain in the arse but this time the cyclist was in the right and the driver should be charged with dangerous driving and assault.

[Beefster]

Fair points Beefster but I think it happened in London where cyclist fatalities are horrendous. Maybe the guy on the bike was mindful of that?

Some drivers are complete bell ends around cyclists. There's a way to interact with folk though and get your point across. Someone, cyclist or not, charges up to anyone calling them a "****ing prick" is taking the risk that they get a slap.

I'm not saying that the guy in the Audi wasn't out of order but the cyclist definitely overreacted and made the situation much worse. I'm in the camp that is sceptical that his foot was run over. An exaggeration to reinforce the cyclist's point IMHO.

There's also the issue of cyclists choosing to sit right in front of a car at lights. I know that it's a cycle area but, given that a car always gets away quicker, I don't see why cyclists can't sit in the lane at the side. TBH, I think the cycle areas at lights just cause problems.

[Hibrandenburg]

Some drivers are complete bell ends around cyclists. There's a way to interact with folk though and get your point across. Someone, cyclist or not, charges up to anyone calling them a "****ing prick" is taking the risk that they get a slap.

I'm not saying that the guy in the Audi wasn't out of order but the cyclist definitely overreacted and made the situation much worse. I'm in the camp that is sceptical that his foot was run over. An exaggeration to reinforce the cyclist's point IMHO.

There's also the issue of cyclists choosing to sit right in front of a car at lights. I know that it's a cycle area but, given that a car always gets away quicker, I don't see why cyclists can't sit in the lane at the side. TBH, I think the cycle areas at lights just cause problems.

The cyclist only said "cycle lane". Where did the "****ing prick" statement come from? Even if he did say it he does have a valid point.



It may also be true that cycle boxes at lights cause problems but if they're there then the laws governing how they are to be obeyed should be obeyed, you can't just choose what laws you want to abide by.

FWIW I'd probably react similarly to the cyclist at the beginning of the video. There's too many tubes out there think they can do what the hell they like and their position is strengthened everytime no-one says anything.

[Steve-O]

The cyclist only said "cycle lane". Where did the "****ing prick" statement come from? Even if he did say it he does have a valid point.



It may also be true that cycle boxes at lights cause problems but if they're there then the laws governing how they are to be obeyed should be obeyed, you can't just choose what laws you want to abide by.

FWIW I'd probably react similarly to the cyclist at the beginning of the video. There's too many tubes out there think they can do what the hell they like and their position is strengthened everytime no-one says anything.

He said it when he charged up the second time.

My view is that both parties are dickheads.

[Hibbyradge]

The cyclist only said "cycle lane". Where did the "****ing prick" statement come from? Even if he did say it he does have a valid point.



It may also be true that cycle boxes at lights cause problems but if they're there then the laws governing how they are to be obeyed should be obeyed, you can't just choose what laws you want to abide by.

FWIW I'd probably react similarly to the cyclist at the beginning of the video. There's too many tubes out there think they can do what the hell they like and their position is strengthened everytime no-one says anything.

When he caught up with the Audi, he called him a "F'n prick".

That's all I heard, nothing about running over his foot.

[Steve-O]

When he caught up with the Audi, he called him a "F'n prick".

That's all I heard, nothing about running over his foot.

I believe it was "F'n prick, you ran over my foot mate".

[MyJo]

The cyclist only said "cycle lane". Where did the "****ing prick" statement come from? Even if he did say it he does have a valid point.



It may also be true that cycle boxes at lights cause problems but if they're there then the laws governing how they are to be obeyed should be obeyed, you can't just choose what laws you want to abide by.

FWIW I'd probably react similarly to the cyclist at the beginning of the video. There's too many tubes out there think they can do what the hell they like and their position is strengthened everytime no-one says anything.

The cyclist made a particular effort to catch up to the car at the next set of lights (not too inconvenienced by his sore foot obviously) and banged on the car window and called the guy a f'ing prick when he caught up with him.

Right or wrong at the first set of lights doesn't matter, if the cyclist is that desperate to confront the driver and aggressively swears and bangs on the car window then he has instigated the confrontation and IMO deserves the slap he gets.

If someone did that to me in the street, in a car, on a bike or anywhere else for that matter I'd probably react the same way as the driver.

[Hibbyradge]

I believe it was "F'n prick, you ran over my foot mate".

Yes, you're right.

The driver was well out of order, and should be prosecuted, particularly as he is seen to deliberately drive into the cycle only area, but the cyclist seemed a bit too eager to cycle at full pelt to confront him.

I also don't believe his foot was driven over.

[Hibbyradge]

The cyclist made a particular effort to catch up to the car at the next set of lights (not too inconvenienced by his sore foot obviously) and banged on the car window and called the guy a f'ing prick when he caught up with him.

Right or wrong at the first set of lights doesn't matter, if the cyclist is that desperate to confront the driver and aggressively swears and bangs on the car window then he has instigated the confrontation and IMO deserves the slap he gets.



No-one "deserves" a slap as far as the law is concerned. Thankfully.




If someone did that to me in the street, in a car, on a bike or anywhere else for that matter I'd probably react the same way as the driver.

Then you'd be guilty of assault too.

[Hibrandenburg]

He said it when he charged up the second time.

My view is that both parties are dickheads.

At the first set of lights the cyclist acted quite reasonably and pointed out that the driver was in a cycle box. Something happened off camera that made him angry which backs up his claim that his foot was run over. Now I don't know about you but I'd be ****ing furious if some welt drove over my foot. At that point however I'd have more than likely asked the other cyclists to back me with statements to the police of the incident, however that's easy to say and maybe I'd also have been consumed in red mist. It has been known :greengrin

[speedy_gonzales]

I know that it's a cycle area but, given that a car always gets away quicker, I don't see why cyclists can't sit in the lane at the side.
Not sure if you cycle Beefster but I occasionally do, I'm not Chris Hoy but very rarely does a car get away quicker. The car will pass eventually but generally I'm over the junction before this happens, something to do with the direct drive nature of my bicycle as opposed to gear selection, clutch slip, momentum lag of the car.
The requirement for advanced stop lines, or cycle box's is a strange one. It's our fault as drivers that they are there, for too long a motorist would pass a cyclist on approach to a set of lights, then conveniently forget they were there whilst they carry out the absent minded 'left hook'!

[Beefster]

The cyclist only said "cycle lane". Where did the "****ing prick" statement come from? Even if he did say it he does have a valid point.

It may also be true that cycle boxes at lights cause problems but if they're there then the laws governing how they are to be obeyed should be obeyed, you can't just choose what laws you want to abide by.

FWIW I'd probably react similarly to the cyclist at the beginning of the video. There's too many tubes out there think they can do what the hell they like and their position is strengthened everytime no-one says anything.

He may well have a valid point but, if you verbally abuse someone, you run the risk that they assault you. The cyclist was no different to the bam who chases behind you in his car to give you the finger and shout some sweary words when you've done something he doesn't like.

Your last paragraph just backed up what I said. If cyclists are going to start confrontations every time a driver does something wrong, the ones who cycle through red lights and on pavements should expect to be pulled up too. It's not "good cyclist, bad driver" in general. It's a minority of pish drivers and cyclists everywhere.


Not sure if you cycle Beefster but I occasionally do, I'm not Chris Hoy but very rarely does a car get away quicker. The car will pass eventually but generally I'm over the junction before this happens, something to do with the direct drive nature of my bicycle as opposed to gear selection, clutch slip, momentum lag of the car.
The requirement for advanced stop lines, or cycle box's is a strange one. It's our fault as drivers that they are there, for too long a motorist would pass a cyclist on approach to a set of lights, then conveniently forget they were there whilst they carry out the absent minded 'left hook'!

I don't cycle every day but I do every now and then. I probably should have said 'the car gets away quicker than me every time"!

I tend to stick to the cycle lane at lights. I don't like the boxes as a cyclist or a driver. I'd probably have a different opinion had some twat cut me off turning left, mind you.

[LaMotta]

The cyclist had his foot run over by the guy in the Audi after the cyclist complained about the the driver moving into the cycle box. I'd say infringing his rights is putting it lightly, more like assault. Cyclists can be a pain in the arse but this time the cyclist was in the right and the driver should be charged with dangerous driving and assault.


Why should the cyclist have had a go at the guy for driving in the box? It wasnt actually having any impact on him whatsoever. Is the cyclist going to police the roads himself and point out every driver error - when someone doesn't indicate at a roundabout for example I assume he'll be doing exactly the same thing? Or when a cyclist runs a red light, he'll take the same moral highground?

Its not up to him to do so.


The use of "threatening, abusive or insulting" language in a public place is also an offence, so not sure how you can condone that?

And, the driver should not be charged with assault, because it was actually a passenger from the back of the car who got out and banjoed bike man. :take that

Both in the wrong as far as im concerned, but the cyclist started it.

[LaMotta]

It's not white with a KW13 CWA registration plate, is it? :greengrin


I wish I had a 13 plate A7 :greengrin

[speedy_gonzales]

Why should the cyclist have had a go at the guy for driving in the box?
It's against the law?
The driver was stationary at the primary stop line, as is required by law, after more cyclists arrived, the driver, for some unknown reason, drives forward, passing the primary stop line whilst signal was still at red and also straddles the lane divider to the adjacent lane.
The driver broke the law, the cyclist is (I presume) NOT a policeman but it is still within the cyclists, or any member of the public's responsibility to address that with the driver. I'm not saying they should be vigilantes but society should be vigilant for such flagrant disregard of public safety never mind rule/law breaking.
I can't see the car hitting the cyclists foot, if anything I think he says 'you nearly hit my foot' or something similar, regardless, the driver of the car was absolutely out of order accelerating away so hard when the cyclist was so close to the car. The cyclist pours fuel on the fire by screaming at the driver at the next junction, certainly a breach of the peace if it was up here in Scotland.

A lot of folk take umbrage when their driving gets questioned, be it from a cyclist, a pedestrian or even another motorist, almost like a guy getting his manhood questioned. What some people tend to forget is that whilst driving there are usually vulnerable people around you, they don't like getting squished and the prospect of getting squished raises the blood pressure and excitement of the situation to a point where you look back from a calm perspective and wonder 'what happened there then?'.

Personally I try to sit back a bit from other road users these days, expect the unexpected and drive around with a fixed smile on my face, amazing how people give you a wide berth when you look like a berserk madman :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Nice hit. Might put his gas at a peep for a while.

[Hibbyradge]

Nice hit. Might put his gas at a peep for a while.

There we are then.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

My view is that both parties are dickheads.

Think that's a reasonable assessment. I cycle to work in central London every day and see people stopped in cycle bays on a regular basis (its not always the drivers fault in slow moving traffic although in this case it clearly wasn't an accident.)

The driver is a prick with a new car and doesn't want to be stuck behind a cyclist. But that's it, he wasn't being dangerous or causing inconvenience to the cyclist. Its best to ignore stuff like that, otherwise laws of average are that, you'll likely get the odd punch in the face.

Re all the cycle deaths in London, I can't comment on any of the individual cases but in general there's some pretty bad cyclists (no helmet, no lights, headphones in, ignoring crossings) and I'm genuinely surprised there are not more accidents. There are some bad drivers but I'm fairly certain the percentage of bad cyclist is alot higher. The police had a big clamp down recently, hopefully its helped.

[Jonnyboy]

I don't own a bike and anyone that tries to make me buy one is gonna get a punch in the coupon :greengrin

[Jones28]

I don't get the wavering here, the driver used his car as a weapon and ran over someone's foot. All the cyclist did was point out that it was a cycle lane.

I am not a cyclist and they irritate me sometimes - especially when riding in the middle of the road, not fair to force cars into over taking because of poor road position - but the driver of the car has no defence.

[lapsedhibee]

I don't get the wavering here, the driver used his car as a weapon and ran over someone's foot. All the cyclist did was point out that it was a cycle lane.

I am not a cyclist and they irritate me sometimes - especially when riding in the middle of the road, not fair to force cars into over taking because of poor road position - but the driver of the car has no defence.

Riding in the middle of the road's recommended in all cycling safety manuals when the street contains parked cars, as it prevents cyclists being injured when car drivers open their doors without looking.

[LaMotta]

I don't own a bike and anyone that tries to make me buy one is gonna get a punch in the coupon :greengrin

:tee hee:


I don't get the wavering here, the driver used his car as a weapon and ran over someone's foot. All the cyclist did was point out that it was a cycle lane.

I am not a cyclist and they irritate me sometimes - especially when riding in the middle of the road, not fair to force cars into over taking because of poor road position - but the driver of the car has no defence.

:faf:

[NAE NOOKIE]

The driver moved forward a bit in order to get away from the bikes when the lights changed. It may be illegal for him to be in the box, but as far as I can see he wasnt actually doing the cyclist any harm, you can clearly see that the car moves to the right out of the way of the bikes.

As I've said before on this thread there is a 3 mile long cycle path between Galashiels and Selkirk, but its amazing the number of times I've ended up in a slow moving line of cars caused by a cyclist riding on the main road along that stretch ...... whats the point of cyclists making a huge outcry about safety when some of them wont even use the facilities provided to keep them safe?

The habit some have of riding 2 abreast on the roads in the Borders is also a pain in the bum ... the roads tend to be narrow and twisty and its no joke going round a bend at 50 MPH to be confronted by two bikes taking up the road doing 15 MPH. Is it worth risking injury or death just so you can have a nice chat with your mate as you ride along?

I appreciate that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as everybody else .... but its a fact that like it or not to the majority of car drivers they are a gigantic pain in the erchie .... its hard enough concentrating on watching what other car drivers are up to without the added distraction of cyclists.

[Sylar]

The driver moved forward a bit in order to get away from the bikes when the lights changed. It may be illegal for him to be in the box, but as far as I can see he wasnt actually doing the cyclist any harm, you can clearly see that the car moves to the right out of the way of the bikes.

As I've said before on this thread there is a 3 mile long cycle path between Galashiels and Selkirk, but its amazing the number of times I've ended up in a slow moving line of cars caused by a cyclist riding on the main road along that stretch ...... whats the point of cyclists making a huge outcry about safety when some of them wont even use the facilities provided to keep them safe?

The habit some have of riding 2 abreast on the roads in the Borders is also a pain in the bum ... the roads tend to be narrow and twisty and its no joke going round a bend at 50 MPH to be confronted by two bikes taking up the road doing 15 MPH. Is it worth risking injury or death just so you can have a nice chat with your mate as you ride along?

I appreciate that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as everybody else .... but its a fact that like it or not to the majority of car drivers they are a gigantic pain in the erchie .... its hard enough concentrating on watching what other car drivers are up to without the added distraction of cyclists.

Aye, because central London is just FILLED with cycle tracks they can use to keep out of the way of morons like this!

There are some idiots who cycle in London but they are vastly outnumbered by the amount of twats behind the wheels of vehicles who don't have the patience to drive in the city.

Part of the reason cyclists ride 2 abreast (not against the law as many seem to think) is so they are safe. It's easier to spot 2 people than a single rider from afar, giving drivers sufficient time to slow down. It might be a pain waiting to find a safe spot to get past them but it's no less irritating than getting stuck behind an old- or unconfident driver.

The bit in bold is the crux of the matter - he shouldn't be in the box and his proximity to the cyclists presents a danger to them. Just like talking on a mobile whilst driving - it might not be likely to do much harm but it's against the law for a reason.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why should the cyclist have had a go at the guy for driving in the box? It wasnt actually having any impact on him whatsoever. Is the cyclist going to police the roads himself and point out every driver error - when someone doesn't indicate at a roundabout for example I assume he'll be doing exactly the same thing? Or when a cyclist runs a red light, he'll take the same moral highground?


This is obviously a generalisation, but IMO there seems to be a sanctimonious radical type of cyclist that won't be happy until we all "see the light" like them. Another wing of the New Puritan Army, along with the anti smokers, and recyclers.

I'm thinking of the type that hooks a toddler up to the bike in a trolley, and then tries to cycle on roads in the city. No one is arguing that the roads are safe for bikes, and I would be sympathetic to more roads being allocated as cycle only.

What I can't take is someone putting their kids life at risk, when cycling in the town is so dangerous.

By the way, I am going to get a bike today. Got a new job that is safely accessible by cycling - 90% off road on the walkways. Be interesting to see how long it takes me to become one of the sanctimonious radicals. :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

The driver moved forward a bit in order to get away from the bikes when the lights changed. It may be illegal for him to be in the box, but as far as I can see he wasnt actually doing the cyclist any harm, you can clearly see that the car moves to the right out of the way of the bikes.

As I've said before on this thread there is a 3 mile long cycle path between Galashiels and Selkirk, but its amazing the number of times I've ended up in a slow moving line of cars caused by a cyclist riding on the main road along that stretch ...... whats the point of cyclists making a huge outcry about safety when some of them wont even use the facilities provided to keep them safe?

The habit some have of riding 2 abreast on the roads in the Borders is also a pain in the bum ... the roads tend to be narrow and twisty and its no joke going round a bend at 50 MPH to be confronted by two bikes taking up the road doing 15 MPH. Is it worth risking injury or death just so you can have a nice chat with your mate as you ride along?

I appreciate that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as everybody else .... but its a fact that like it or not to the majority of car drivers they are a gigantic pain in the erchie .... its hard enough concentrating on watching what other car drivers are up to without the added distraction of cyclists.
Yes, we get it, it's your road because you've paid your road tax and cyclists occasionally - or in your mind 'amazingly often' - inconvenience you.

[lapsedhibee]

This is obviously a generalisation, but IMO there seems to be a sanctimonious radical type of cyclist that won't be happy until we all "see the light" like them. Another wing of the New Puritan Army, along with the anti smokers, and recyclers.

There's plenty proselytising cyclists, it's true. Good thing an aw, otherwise there wouldn't be any cyclepaths in Edinburgh for you to swan about on when you get your shiny new bike!

[Phil D. Rolls]

There's plenty proselytising cyclists, it's true. Good thing an aw, otherwise there wouldn't be any cyclepaths in Edinburgh for you to swan about on when you get your shiny new bike!

For which I am eternally grateful. I can't help think that a man sets out seeking justice and ends up wanting a crown, though.

[lapsedhibee]

For which I am eternally grateful. I can't help think that a man sets out seeking justice and ends up wanting a crown, though.

I never trust the moral/political philosophy of a goalie unless he's spent a fair proportion of his time off having oranges thrown at him by a spouse.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Yes, we get it, it's your road because you've paid your road tax and cyclists occasionally - or in your mind 'amazingly often' - inconvenience you.

Eh .......... I never said it was my road and I never said anything about road tax either, most cyclists are also drivers and pay road tax anyway . The fact that cyclists have just as much right to the road as everybody else is not in dispute and I wouldnt be as arrogant as to say it was. That does not alter the fact that in some cases they make car driving more difficult ..... my examples were bases on experience. I did not make them up as you appear to be suggesting.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Eh .......... I never said it was my road and I never said anything about road tax either, most cyclists are also drivers and pay road tax anyway . The fact that cyclists have just as much right to the road as everybody else is not in dispute and I wouldnt be as arrogant as to say it was. That does not alter the fact that in some cases they make car driving more difficult ..... my examples were bases on experience. I did not make them up as you appear to be suggesting.

A lot of them seem to ride machines that can convert from bike to car, and reverse, depending on conditions. Red light - I'm a bike, so ill go on the pavement, etc.

[HiBremian]

Yes, we get it, it's your road because you've paid your road tax and cyclists occasionally - or in your mind 'amazingly often' - inconvenience you.

Road tax was abolished in 1937.

[HiBremian]

A lot of them seem to ride machines that can convert from bike to car, and reverse, depending on conditions. Red light - I'm a bike, so ill go on the pavement, etc.

Bikes are bikes, not cars. Most Edinburgh roads are designed for the latter.

[lapsedhibee]

Road tax was abolished in 1937.


Bikes are bikes, not cars.

Think you might be taking some of these posts a tad literally, AHF :wink:

[HiBremian]

Think you might be taking some of these posts a tad literally, AHF :wink:

Aye, could be right, LH.

Just that living in Bremen, you have tae laugh at how folks back home deal with the whole cycling thing. Or maybe it's cry. :rolleyes:

[lapsedhibee]

Eh .......... I never said it was my road and I never said anything about road tax either, most cyclists are also drivers and pay road tax anyway . The fact that cyclists have just as much right to the road as everybody else is not in dispute and I wouldnt be as arrogant as to say it was. That does not alter the fact that in some cases they make car driving more difficult ..... my examples were bases on experience. I did not make them up as you appear to be suggesting.

It's not really a fact, though, is it? It's your perception, just as 'It's amazing how often cyclists hold up a whole line of traffic by behaving badly' is your perception. I drive a car in Edinburgh every day and cyclists don't make my journeys difficult at all. I put it to you, NB, that it's all about perception - which in driver-cyclist wars is a function of the perceiver's tolerance.

What makes my journeys unnecessarily slow, for example all along Melville Drive, is people using pedestrian crossings to delay traffic when in many cases there's absolutely no need to do so. They're fit healthy adults mostly and could cross the road perfectly safely themselves without any technological help if they had any gumption. Gumption and a willingness to take their heads out of their iPhones for more than 5 seconds. (Did I say people? I meant bloody students.)

[Hibrandenburg]

It's not really a fact, though, is it? It's your perception, just as 'It's amazing how often cyclists hold up a whole line of traffic by behaving badly' is your perception. I drive a car in Edinburgh every day and cyclists don't make my journeys difficult at all. I put it to you, NB, that it's all about perception - which in driver-cyclist wars is a function of the perceiver's tolerance.

What makes my journeys unnecessarily slow, for example all along Melville Drive, is people using pedestrian crossings to delay traffic when in many cases there's absolutely no need to do so. They're fit healthy adults mostly and could cross the road perfectly safely themselves without any technological help if they had any gumption. Gumption and a willingness to take their heads out of their iPhones for more than 5 seconds. (Did I say people? I meant bloody students.)

Not using the crossing to cross the road is setting a poor example to kids who may be watching but that's another argument for another thread.

[lapsedhibee]

Not using the crossing to cross the road is setting a poor example to kids who may be watching but that's another argument for another thread.
If children grow up thinking that the only way to cross a road is by pressing a button, shirley there's a risk they'll turn in to adults who think that the only way to cross a road is by pressing a button?

[Hibrandenburg]

If children grow up thinking that the only way to cross a road is by pressing a button, shirley there's a risk they'll turn in to adults who think that the only way to cross a road is by pressing a button?

Not the point and you know it. Kids especially small ones try and mimic what adults do but can't because they're smaller, slower and don't have a fully developed sense of danger or the ability to judge speed like we can. Add to that that they're more difficult to see for drivers and you've got enough good reasons to try and set a good example. Like I said it's a whole discussion for itself and deviates from the topic so I'll leave it there.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It's not really a fact, though, is it? It's your perception, just as 'It's amazing how often cyclists hold up a whole line of traffic by behaving badly' is your perception. I drive a car in Edinburgh every day and cyclists don't make my journeys difficult at all. I put it to you, NB, that it's all about perception - which in driver-cyclist wars is a function of the perceiver's tolerance.

What makes my journeys unnecessarily slow, for example all along Melville Drive, is people using pedestrian crossings to delay traffic when in many cases there's absolutely no need to do so. They're fit healthy adults mostly and could cross the road perfectly safely themselves without any technological help if they had any gumption. Gumption and a willingness to take their heads out of their iPhones for more than 5 seconds. (Did I say people? I meant bloody students.)

No ... Its not just perception ...... I'm not saying that bikes cause me problems on a daily basis or that all cyclists are careless or ride badly, in fact my post said "in some cases" did it not? It is natural for a car driver to be looking out for other motorised vehicles and I would guess that as a consequence of this it is easy to miss something as small as a bicycle ... I would suggest that most accidents involving the two modes of transport are caused by the driver not seeing the bike, as opposed to rank careless driving or the driver not caring about the cyclist. Its interesting that many motor bike riders leave their headlight on in the daytime to be more visible to other road traffic.

An example I forgot happened less than 3 weeks ago. I visit my mum regularly .... Joining the main road from her scheme you have to watch out for traffic coming round a sharp bend to your right about 30 yards up the road. It was dark and just as I was about to pull out a car came round the corner forcing me to break .... which is just as well because I had failed to notice the cyclist with no lights and dark clothing on who was 10 yards away ........ my fault for not looking hard enough? or his for failing to make himself visible?

[lapsedhibee]

No ... Its not just perception ...... I'm not saying that bikes cause me problems on a daily basis or that all cyclists are careless or ride badly, in fact my post said "in some cases" did it not? It is natural for a car driver to be looking out for other motorised vehicles and I would guess that as a consequence of this it is easy to miss something as small as a bicycle ... I would suggest that most accidents involving the two modes of transport are caused by the driver not seeing the bike, as opposed to rank careless driving or the driver not caring about the cyclist. Its interesting that many motor bike riders leave their headlight on in the daytime to be more visible to other road traffic.

If a driver is looking out for cars and not other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, then that driver should not have passed a driving test and should not be on the road at all. I don't know what "natural" means here. People are supposed to be trained, pass a test, be awarded a licence. If they can't overcome what comes "naturally" to them, they shouldn't be driving two tons of metal around!

A driver not seeing another road user is imo "rank careless driving".



An example I forgot happened less than 3 weeks ago. I visit my mum regularly .... Joining the main road from her scheme you have to watch out for traffic coming round a sharp bend to your right about 30 yards up the road. It was dark and just as I was about to pull out a car came round the corner forcing me to break .... which is just as well because I had failed to notice the cyclist with no lights and dark clothing on who was 10 yards away ........ my fault for not looking hard enough? or his for failing to make himself visible?
Agree not your fault - cyclist with a death wish.

[blackpoolhibs]

I was driving along an unlit road last night, when out of the blue a cyclist drove onto the road from between two parked cars not 10 feet in front of me.

If i had not quickened up, i'm pretty sure i'd have missed the silly *******. :wink:

Only joking, but this did happen and the idiot was nearly killed. :grr:

[Hainan Hibs]

Fantastic hit, cyclist will think twice about giving it the billy big man act the next time.