Driver punches cyclist

[caLLous]

"Too closely", how black and white.

 

[eksdee]

Oh right, so now I've gone from hating motorists, to having a small dick and buying a decent car to make up for it.

What next, a mum joke? Dickhead.

Wow. You're very touchy about it, aren't you! Could equally just be a mid-life crisis. Don't worry, plenty of people go through it. I'm sure you'll be fine.

The fact of the matter is your posts were deliberately inflammatory and completely lacked any objectivity over the matter - and, yes, I'm aware I did the same thing before you're stupid enough to try and point that out. However, completely eschewing things I say because you have decided you don't want them to be true is so frustratingly moronic that it just upsets me.

Be pedantic all you like over whether particular issues related to the conduct of cyclists on our roads is or isn't expressly illegal, the fact of the matter is they are dangerous for everyone and I'd be far more worried about that than anything else. Then again, it's clear all you care about is being 'right' so I doubt you really give a shit either way. Take the example I gave about the cyclist stopping dead and stepping into the middle of the road while I was driving home yesterday, did it not occur to you that if I swerved onto the opposite side of the road I could have hit a car? And if I hadn't done that I would have hit the cyclist? If that cyclist had any ounce of awareness of what the hell was going on - or better yet, some mirrors (which according to you, he doesn't need) - then an extremely dangerous situation would have been avoided.

Motorists make dick moves, so do cyclists. Neither your sanctimonious bullshit attitude about cycling nor your dick-enhancer car make a jot of difference either way to the truth of the matter. Hell, cyclists on the roads in England wouldn't even be an issue if we had a proper infrastructure for it. Take cities like Berlin, Copenhagen, Malmo - all places I have driven through and seen the huge difference proper bike lanes etc can make. However, on our roads they are just a danger most of the time because those things generally aren't there. Again, on my commute to work this morning - a cyclist weaved in and out of two lanes of slow moving traffic, before mounting a busy pavement to ride through pedestrians and run a red light, only to get back on the road when it suited him around the corner. Why is that somehow 'okay' because it's a cyclist? It's not, the guy is clearly dangerous and a cunt. He did the same thing at the next junction. The best thing? There was a cycle lane on both bits of the road that he completely ignored.

 

[DaGaffer]

Don't forget to count every car parked on the pavement, and every car which overtakes a cyclist too closely.

I won't. It should be a non-issue on the route I take, although the "car passing too closely" bit is tricky to see. It tends to be the opposite problem on my route to the station, a narrow, but open road with totally inadequate cycle lane markings means that people get backed up behind cyclists because there's no way to give them room without doing a proper other-side-of-the-road overtake. Its not the cyclist's fault (except when the cunts ride parallel), but personally I won't ride a bike on that stretch because its just too damn dangerous (same for pedestrians, I wouldn't walk that route for the same reason, which is a shame because it should be a beautiful coastal walk), e.g:

 

[Tom]

The fact of the matter is your posts were deliberately inflammatory and completely lacked any objectivity over the matter - and, yes, I'm aware I did the same thing before you're stupid enough to try and point that out. However, completely eschewing things I say because you have decided you don't want them to be true is so frustratingly moronic that it just upsets me.

Oh and you're sanity's shining light I suppose? Pull the other one, it's clear you have no experience of cycling on the roads.

Be pedantic all you like over whether particular issues related to the conduct of cyclists on our roads is or isn't expressly illegal, the fact of the matter is they are dangerous for everyone and I'd be far more worried about that than anything else.

There's nothing dangerous about filtering through traffic, and there isn't really all that much that's dangerous about ignoring red lights either. Just as speeding in a car isn't necessarily dangerous, or jumping out of a window. I don't jump red lights at junctions, primarily because I don't consider it entirely safe, but also because I understand the impression it leaves. I do, however, often ignore red lights on pedestrian crossings, because I see nothing dangerous at all about doing it, and I'd rather get well away from the traffic stopped there. I make no apology for it.

Take the example I gave about the cyclist stopping dead and stepping into the middle of the road while I was driving home yesterday, did it not occur to you that if I swerved onto the opposite side of the road I could have hit a car? And if I hadn't done that I would have hit the cyclist?

So what you're saying is you were driving so close to the cyclist, you were unable to stop, and had to swerve? That's a textbook example of driving carelessly. One should always be able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead. No, you'll get no sympathy from me, because from your own version of events it's clear you can't drive safely. You're exactly the kind of motorist I'd rather see off the roads.

If that cyclist had any ounce of awareness of what the hell was going on - or better yet, some mirrors (which according to you, he doesn't need) - then an extremely dangerous situation would have been avoided.

So you were driving too closely to the cyclist, who by your admission was "swerving all over the place". Tell me, do you really believe that if you'd hit that cyclist, any judge in the land would have sympathy with your case? You'd be charged with careless or dangerous driving, there's no question about it.

Motorists make dick moves, so do cyclists. Neither your sanctimonious bullshit attitude about cycling nor your dick-enhancer car make a jot of difference either way to the truth of the matter.

You don't know what you're talking about. No experience of cycling, and never driven a decent car. The epitomy of the angry little man.

Hell, cyclists on the roads in England wouldn't even be an issue if we had a proper infrastructure for it.

First intelligent thing you've said, except that cyclists aren't "an issue", road safety is.

Again, on my commute to work this morning - a cyclist weaved in and out of two lanes of slow moving traffic, before mounting a busy pavement to ride through pedestrians and run a red light, only to get back on the road when it suited him around the corner. Why is that somehow 'okay' because it's a cyclist?

Never said it was, did I? Similarly, what about the driver who, while I was cycling around a 90' left turn, decided it was ok to overtake me and force me into the kerb as her rear wing came within about 6 inches of my handlebar? She then broke the speed limit, got to the red light half a mile up the road, and advanced over the stop line against the red.

The best thing? There was a cycle lane on both bits of the road that he completely ignored.

Cycle lanes are fucking shit, and we ignore them for many reasons. But then again, you wouldn't understand, because you don't know anything about cycling.

 

[MYstIC G]

Right, as of this morning I've started DaGaffer's Extremely Scientific Twat Investigation System (DESTINY). I take the same route to work every morning, that mixes a quiet rural road to the train station, then a walk through a busy town centre with loads of cars, bikes and pedestrians (but no trucks which are banned from the town centre at that time). For the next week I'm going to observe and count all the twattish/illegal behaviour by type (cars/bikes/peds/public transport). I'm including motorbikes in amongst cars (controversial). For the record I'm not measuring technicalities like jaywalking if there's actually no traffic around, but I will measure it if a pedestrian does it where its obviously dangerous.

So, Day 1.
Cars: 1 (BMW X5 ran red light - "amber gambler" rather than blatant)
Pedestrian: 1 (druggie through slow, but moving, traffic on the Quays)
Bikes: 7 (1 wrong way around the roundabout(!) to turn right, 1 red light runner - blatant, weaved around around pedestrians, then another five in one go at O'Connell Bridge, also blatant - one went and the others followed).
Public Transport: 0 (didn't spot anything anyway).

stay tuned for more exciting and death-defying work journeys.

This could be fun. I say Cars win tomorrow.

 

[eksdee]

Oh and you're sanity's shining light I suppose? Pull the other one, it's clear you have no experience of cycling on the roads.



There's nothing dangerous about filtering through traffic, and there isn't really all that much that's dangerous about ignoring red lights either. Just as speeding in a car isn't necessarily dangerous, or jumping out of a window. I don't jump red lights at junctions, primarily because I don't consider it entirely safe, but also because I understand the impression it leaves. I do, however, often ignore red lights on pedestrian crossings, because I see nothing dangerous at all about doing it, and I'd rather get well away from the traffic stopped there. I make no apology for it.



So what you're saying is you were driving so close to the cyclist, you were unable to stop, and had to swerve? That's a textbook example of driving carelessly. One should always be able to stop in the distance one can see to be clear ahead. No, you'll get no sympathy from me, because from your own version of events it's clear you can't drive safely. You're exactly the kind of motorist I'd rather see off the roads.



So you were driving too closely to the cyclist, who by your admission was "swerving all over the place". Tell me, do you really believe that if you'd hit that cyclist, any judge in the land would have sympathy with your case? You'd be charged with careless or dangerous driving, there's no question about it.



You don't know what you're talking about. No experience of cycling, and never driven a decent car. The epitomy of the angry little man.



First intelligent thing you've said, except that cyclists aren't "an issue", road safety is.



Never said it was, did I? Similarly, what about the driver who, while I was cycling around a 90' left turn, decided it was ok to overtake me and force me into the kerb as her rear wing came within about 6 inches of my handlebar? She then broke the speed limit, got to the red light half a mile up the road, and advanced over the stop line against the red.



Cycle lanes are fucking shit, and we ignore them for many reasons. But then again, you wouldn't understand, because you don't know anything about cycling.

Broadly what you're saying is what I've said ten times over - both cyclists and motorists make dick moves.

And no, I wasn't anything like too close to that cyclist, but when someone stops dead on a 60mph speed limit road, you approach them rather faster than originally intended. Stop being so eager to try and make a point out of something that isn't there.

Also, my car is just fine. I, however, don't feel the need to brag about anything about my life on the internet for reasons I'm sure would be lost on you.

It's clear this isn't going anywhere, I think you're an idiot, you think I am. I think cyclists are dangerous, you don't. Let's leave it at that, this is getting utterly tiresome.

 

[Tom]

And no, I wasn't anything like too close to that cyclist, but when someone stops dead on a 60mph speed limit road, you approach them rather faster than originally intended. Stop being so eager to try and make a point out of something that isn't there.

Also, my car is just fine. I, however, don't feel the need to brag about anything about my life on the internet for reasons I'm sure would be lost on you.

You said that if you hadn't swerved, you would have hit the cyclist. All he did was stop in the road, he didn't descend from heaven, or materialise ala Star Trek. He was cycling in the road, stopped, and you claimed you had to swerve to avoid him. You then tried to elicit some kind of sympathy by suggesting that you could have hit oncoming traffic.

So not only did you place the cyclist's life in danger, and not only did you risk an accident, you also placed the lives of those travelling in the opposite direction, in danger. You were clearly driving too close, at too high a speed, and you were therefore driving either carelessly, or dangerously. This is all derived from your words, not mine.

Also, I wasn't bragging, I mentioned what cars I've owned/own to demonstrate how wrong you were to assert that I hate them, and motorists. In your mind that must mean that I'm deficient in some manner. In my mind all this identifies you quite clearly as the stereotypical "angry little man", who feels his masculinity is somehow offended by the sight of all those sexy lycra-clad sweaty bottoms sailing through the congestion each day. Sexy, muscly men riding bicycles more expensive than your Audi/Kia/whatever, and doing exactly what you wish you could, but can't. Sailing past the thousands of cars sat going nowhere. How very frustrating for you. Give me a honk if you're ever in Manchester, I'll make sure I break some laws for you.

 

[Tom]

I won't. It should be a non-issue on the route I take, although the "car passing too closely" bit is tricky to see. It tends to be the opposite problem on my route to the station, a narrow, but open road with totally inadequate cycle lane markings means that people get backed up behind cyclists because there's no way to give them room without doing a proper other-side-of-the-road overtake. Its not the cyclist's fault (except when the cunts ride parallel), but personally I won't ride a bike on that stretch because its just too damn dangerous (same for pedestrians, I wouldn't walk that route for the same reason, which is a shame because it should be a beautiful coastal walk), e.g:

A shame. Outside my house, right now, 6 cars are parked either partly or wholly on the pavement. That's in just three small streets.

 

[Raven]

Yeah I know what you mean, its just so dangerous isn't it? Certainly puts jumping a red light into perspective!

 

[DaGaffer]

A shame. Outside my house, right now, 6 cars are parked either partly or wholly on the pavement. That's in just three small streets.

Yeah I know what you mean, its just so dangerous isn't it? Certainly puts jumping a red light into perspective!

I'm conscious of that issue as well; I have a baby, which means a buggy, which means vehicles parked on the pavement are a pain in the arse for me. Yeah, it is dangerous if I have wheel my kid out into the road to get around them.

 

[eksdee]

Let's take your approach to this since blind conjecture seems to be all you deal in:

You said that if you hadn't swerved, you would have hit the cyclist. All he did was stop in the road, he didn't descend from heaven, or materialise ala Star Trek. He was cycling in the road, stopped, and you claimed you had to swerve to avoid him. You then tried to elicit some kind of sympathy by suggesting that you could have hit oncoming traffic.

So not only did you place the cyclist's life in danger, and not only did you risk an accident, you also placed the lives of those travelling in the opposite direction, in danger. You were clearly driving too close, at too high a speed, and you were therefore driving either carelessly, or dangerously. This is all derived from your words, not mine.

Couldn't be more wrong.

In my mind all this identifies you quite clearly as the stereotypical "angry little man", who feels his masculinity is somehow offended by the sight of all those sexy lycra-clad sweaty bottoms sailing through the congestion each day. Sexy, muscly men riding bicycles more expensive than your Audi/Kia/whatever, and doing exactly what you wish you could, but can't. Sailing past the thousands of cars sat going nowhere. How very frustrating for you. Give me a honk if you're ever in Manchester, I'll make sure I break some laws for you.

No. Wrong.

Because I dislike cyclists does not mean that I do not take care for them while I am on the road. Not all people are so fervently and willfully moronic as you seem to wish to judge them to be.

I was also a vegetarian for a very long time, in that time I didn't blow up any meat packing plants or stab a butcher. It's ironic that you point out (rightly) that I accuse you, in a rash and reactionary manner, of hating motorists, and then your come back in every post is simply to rant and rave that I am some kind of monster because I dislike cyclists while completely disregarding the idea that anything I say against cyclists might possibly be true.

 

[TdC]

Right, as of this morning I've started DaGaffer's Extremely Scientific Twat Investigation System (DESTINY). I take the same route to work every morning, that mixes a quiet rural road to the train station, then a walk through a busy town centre with loads of cars, bikes and pedestrians (but no trucks which are banned from the town centre at that time). For the next week I'm going to observe and count all the twattish/illegal behaviour by type (cars/bikes/peds/public transport). I'm including motorbikes in amongst cars (controversial). For the record I'm not measuring technicalities like jaywalking if there's actually no traffic around, but I will measure it if a pedestrian does it where its obviously dangerous.

So, Day 1.
Cars: 1 (BMW X5 ran red light - "amber gambler" rather than blatant)
Pedestrian: 1 (druggie through slow, but moving, traffic on the Quays)
Bikes: 7 (1 wrong way around the roundabout(!) to turn right, 1 red light runner - blatant, weaved around around pedestrians, then another five in one go at O'Connell Bridge, also blatant - one went and the others followed).
Public Transport: 0 (didn't spot anything anyway).

stay tuned for more exciting and death-defying work journeys.

that's awesome, I'm certainly looking forward to your results. use the blog function or something, and it will be chronological and stuffs

 

[TdC]

Yeah I know what you mean, its just so dangerous isn't it? Certainly puts jumping a red light into perspective!

not to be rude, but cars on pavements and blocking on and off slopes towards the sidewalk is FUCKING annoying, pardon my french.

when I broke my leg, I was in a wheelchair for 12 weeks. during that time, my gf of the moment and I had to do things, like get groceries, go to the city centre for diverse reasons, etc. Every, no EVERY one of those times, we encountered cars that blocked sidewalks, etcetera. it's entirely inconsiderate and the ass-holes who do that deserve death by anal tearing tbh.

edit: this is years ago, and it STILL makes me physically angry :/

 

[Tom]

Couldn't be more wrong.

Your own words:

Take the example I gave about the cyclist stopping dead and stepping into the middle of the road while I was driving home yesterday, did it not occur to you that if I swerved onto the opposite side of the road I could have hit a car? And if I hadn't done that I would have hit the cyclist? If that cyclist had any ounce of awareness of what the hell was going on - or better yet, some mirrors (which according to you, he doesn't need) - then an extremely dangerous situation would have been avoided.

Come on, how am I wrong?

 

[eksdee]

You obviously have problems comprehending basic English. The answer is in what you already quoted. I'm not going to spell it out for you.

 

[Tom]

Why not? It must be really simple.

I mean, if driving safely, as you imply, you would surely have left the minimum 6 feet distance between yourself and the cyclist. You would also have been travelling slow enough to brake and avoid the cyclist, rather than swerving into the oncoming lane.

I think you've either exaggerated what really happened, or simply made it up. Either way it sounds as though your driving was well below par.

 

[Tom]

Oh and hopefully the stupid cunt has been charged:

BBC News - Man charged over Bexley attack on cyclist

 

[Access Denied]

Fuck me what a load of horse shit I've just read. Cyclists, Pedestrians and drivers can all be cunts. I had a cyclist yesterday, riding on the pavement, abruptly swerve to the right and across the road in front of me. This was at a set of lights which were green for me. If I hadn't have been concentrating I would've hit him. I've seen pedestrians being stupid, unobservant and downright wankerish. I've also seen, and saw today, drivers go straight over at a zebra crossing with an island when people are half way across.

Ek. I'm afraid I'm with Tom on the issue of that cyclist that stopped in the middle of the road. If, as you say he was swerving all over the road, you had plenty of time to observe this and make any adjustments in the way of slowing down or taking avoiding action.

Tom, you contradicted yourself in one of your posts. You first stated that it wasn't all that dangerous for a cyclist to run a red light. You then, not 10 words later, stated that you don't run red lights because you don't think it's all that safe. You're both being stubborn, you both refuse to admit that the other has a point. Leave it as it is and stop clogging up the boards with your pointless, e-peen stroking vitriol.

 

[Corran]

Why not? It must be really simple.

I mean, if driving safely, as you imply, you would surely have left the minimum 6 feet distance between yourself and the cyclist. You would also have been travelling slow enough to brake and avoid the cyclist, rather than swerving into the oncoming lane.

I think you've either exaggerated what really happened, or simply made it up. Either way it sounds as though your driving was well below par.

I bet that you would complain though if i disconnected my break lights, drove infront of a cyclist and slammed on the breaks for no reason and say that the cyclist was endangered by suddenly stopping for no reason and making him go in the back of the car/take avoidance action.

I am ALWAYS having to overtake cyclists on country lanes around my home. Most are fucking useless. They ride in packs and block the ENTIRE road and do not understand the laws around cyclists behaviours. Im sure no cyclist knows how to ride in a straight line, they wiggle all over the place, go to overtake, give them half a lane worth of space and they still end up inches from the car as you pass etc.

I dont dislike all cyclists, just dislike the twats that have no care on the road. Dont care if it is car, cyclist, pedestrian. . . they just piss me off, with cars though it is easier to have fun. Someone wants to sit up my ass when im doing the speed limit (or just over), I actually then slow right down. If im overtaking on a motorway and some idiot comes behind 30mph over the limit and starts flashing me I will stop my overtake and drive alongside the guy in the next lane... harder to piss of twat cyclists though

 

[eksdee]

Why not? It must be really simple.

I mean, if driving safely, as you imply, you would surely have left the minimum 6 feet distance between yourself and the cyclist. You would also have been travelling slow enough to brake and avoid the cyclist, rather than swerving into the oncoming lane.

I think you've either exaggerated what really happened, or simply made it up. Either way it sounds as though your driving was well below par.

No you're just taking the word 'swerve' to imply that I was going too fast or was too close to the cyclist - clearly a problem with your comprehension of the word:

swerve [swɜːv]
vb
1. to turn or cause to turn aside, usually sharply or suddenly, from a course
2. (tr) to avoid (a person or event)
n
the act, instance, or degree of swerving

usually [ˈjuːʒʊəlɪ]
adv
(sentence modifier) customarily; at most times; in the ordinary course of events

As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the cyclist was swerving all over the road, I slowed down. As I approached said cyclist, he stepped off his bike into the middle of the road, causing my need to swerve - at around 20-30mph - the direction of my vehicle into the oncoming lane on the opposite side. Thereby causing me danger due to the cyclist's lack of care.

Clear enough for you?

 

[Tom]

Tom, you contradicted yourself in one of your posts. You first stated that it wasn't all that dangerous for a cyclist to run a red light. You then, not 10 words later, stated that you don't run red lights because you don't think it's all that safe. You're both being stubborn, you both refuse to admit that the other has a point. Leave it as it is and stop clogging up the boards with your pointless, e-peen stroking vitriol.

It isn't all that dangerous, but I generally don't do it because I feel safer that way.

I don't see that as being contradictory. Some people think mountain biking is dangerous, doesn't stop me doing it though.

 

[Tom]

No you're just taking the word 'swerve' to imply that I was going too fast or was too close to the cyclist - clearly a problem with your comprehension of the word:

Please don't try and lecture me on grammar or syntax, because you'll fail. Your post was clearly designed to give everyone the impression that you were driving quite normally and safely, and were forced into drastic action by the cyclist. I reckon you were dozing at the wheel.

As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the cyclist was swerving all over the road, I slowed down. As I approached said cyclist, he stepped off his bike into the middle of the road, causing my need to swerve - at around 20-30mph - the direction of my vehicle into the oncoming lane on the opposite side. Thereby causing me danger due to the cyclist's lack of care.

Clear enough for you?

When I overtake cyclists I do so usually giving them a minimum of 10 feet or so - a minimum. If the other lane is clear I'll generally be half to completely in it.

If you'd been driving safely the chances are you wouldn't even have had to change direction. And a cyclist dismounting places him in the middle of the road? Maybe if he's the Green Giant.

So let's see, first you accuse me of hating motorists. Then you say I have a small dick. Then you can't get your story straight. You sound like a bit of a berk.

 

[eksdee]

You're simply twisting what I'm saying to suit what you want it to mean, this is boring now. And I wasn't 'lecturing' you, but it is pure fact that you misconstrued or did not understand the full meaning of the word. Don't blame me for that. I guess old age does that to you, so I'll forgive you wasting my time explaining it.

 

[Embattle]

that's awesome, I'm certainly looking forward to your results. use the blog function or something, and it will be chronological and stuffs

Living in London means I see a mixture of everything and overall it is pretty even and rather stupid. This morning I saw a woman go through a red on a bike then up on the A4 I saw about 6 cars pile through an amber with another 4 through the red. On the way home I saw one of those sandwich cyclists who was pulling two carts (normally only one) go through a red then hog the middle of the road as well as a bunch of pedestrians crossing under the red man at traffic lights.

 

[Jupitus]

Please STFU Tom and Eksdee!

 

[Corran]

When I overtake cyclists I do so usually giving them a minimum of 10 feet or so - a minimum. If the other lane is clear I'll generally be half to completely in it.

I want some of them roads you drive on... most the roads I drive on are barely 10ft wide
So For me to safely pass a cyclist I need to drive through the fields? In that case what do I do about the cows, sheep, horses, dog on a quad bike and the tractors that will then be in the way? Bah... see, look at the trouble bloody cyclists put us through!

 

[DaGaffer]

When I overtake cyclists I do so usually giving them a minimum of 10 feet or so - a minimum. If the other lane is clear I'll generally be half to completely in it.

I wouldn't think that was possible on most 'B' roads, and not exactly easy on a lot of 'A' roads (European standard for two lane A roads is 7m - 22 feet). If you're giving cyclists 10 feet, you're probably creating a more dangerous situation than you have to.


Day 2 of my little observational experiment here

 

[MYstIC G]

Man, my predictions are rubbish. Cyclists win again!

 

[eksdee]

I wouldn't think that was possible on most 'B' roads, and not exactly easy on a lot of 'A' roads (European standard for two lane A roads is 7m - 22 feet). If you're giving cyclists 10 feet, you're probably creating a more dangerous situation than you have to.


Day 2 of my little observational experiment here

Overtaking cyclists - Exactly what is a safe passing distance? - Cycling blog

RECOMMENDED SAFE DISTANCE FOR OVERTAKING A BICYCLE?: Cyclexperience

10 feet? Sounds like your driving is sub par and that you are causing unnecessary danger to other road users by taking up more of the road than necessary, Tom.

 

[GimmlyThe3rd]

10 feet? that would be another lane here, I get through caps on my motorbike with mm's to spare on each wing mirror.

People need to be educated on how to ride on the road, that's the problem period imo. Before I even learnt to drive (car) I had no idea how to ride a bike the correct way on the road .... do these idiots even know how to give way at a busy roundabout? let alone multiple lights and double roundabouts ...