Driver Cyclist arguement with a brilliant ending NSFW or kids

T-K-O

RainyDay wrote: »

Just in case my irony meter is mis-reading, you do realise that sections of the video were speeded up.




A back-of-the-envelope calculation for me suggests that proportionally out death toll on the roads is a little bit worse than the UK. It is certainly a factor that is holding back cycling.

I'm not so sure that it's a great idea to highlight this, as there is a significant contingent of people who appear to be absolutely determined to spend as much time as possible in larger and larger traffic jams watching the rear end of the car in front, and not do anything that could possibly ease traffic flow and make their journey faster.


As explained at least three times on the thread, the police would do absolutely nothing about this evidence. Several UK police forces have an explicit policy that says 'unless someone gets hurt, don't bother reporting traffic stuff to us'. Others operate this policy implicitly.

Exactly there was no crime here just a idiot on a bike. Justify it all you want but it's only a matter of time before someone ends up.seriously hurt or worse

RainyDay

Nekarsulm wrote: »

The usual figure bandied about, is 2000 dollars for every million views.

All depends on who clicks the ads, but your estimate seems very, very high to me.

Ranchu wrote: »

If you spend your days commenting on cycling videos you should definitely do something else. It's fanatical behaviour that can't be good for your mental health.

And commenting on discussions about cycling videos is completely different how?

tomasrojo wrote: »

(Our road deaths should be lower, but they actually are ok by European standards. The hidden problem is we have achieved it to a large extent by creating an environment in which the vulnerable have virtually no independent travel.)

Sadly true.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I was referring to the pathetic comment about how it's OK to hate cyclists who suffer like blacks, Jews, gays, dogs, Irish etc, not the lamentable number of deaths on our roads.

Have a look at any online discussion about cycling, and you see exhortations to violence (including one on this thread that has been dealt with by mods). Why do some people pick out wearing of lycra as something to hate? Because it is different - it is something they don't do themselves, so they decide that it's OK to hate people based on what they wear, just like hating people for the colour of their skin or the size of their nose.

el tel

I think if the fella in the car had fallen with a limb or his head going down an open drain cover during the tumble it would have been much more entertaining.

EagererBeaver

Again, play me your violin.

tomasrojo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Again, play me your violin.

Well, there's no comeback to arguments based on members of the chordophone family.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, there's no comeback to arguments based on members of the chordophone family.

Bro, if you continue to harp on I may just call you a lyre.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Look as you said lets deal with reality.
If he had not followed the motorist and had presented the video to the police they would not have taken action because there is at least a foot between the car and cyclist.

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?

QuinDixie wrote: »

He followed the motorist and everything that happened after that was instigated by the cyclist.

Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?

QuinDixie wrote: »

2 headcases, real big city thinking mindsets, this is my space and **** anyone who enters it.

I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.

QuinDixie wrote: »

Anyone who agrees with either party, need to reevaluate their life values.

Do we really need the amateur psychology?

T-K-O wrote: »

Exactly there was no crime here just a idiot on a bike. Justify it all you want but it's only a matter of time before someone ends up.seriously hurt or worse

You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Again, play me your violin.

Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

Wright

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Jesus Christ, play me the world's smallest violin.

Sorry what? I would say people killed is actually rather tragic?

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?



Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?


I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.


Do we really need the amateur psychology?


You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.




Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

I heard Adolf and Josef were avid cyclists.
Safe passing space, there is motorists and cyclists who do not understand those words.
Every road user needs to be chilled out, no rushing allowed. Remain calm and enjoy your drive/cycle/run/walk.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Safe passing space, there is motorists and cyclists who do not understand those words.

Indeed, there was one on this thread earlier who thought that 'at least a foot' was a reasonable passing space.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, there was one on this thread earlier who thought that 'at least a foot' was a reasonable passing space.

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

irelandrover

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

Because if you hit a pothole you can easily swerve 30.48cm when youre on a bike. Or a gust of wind can easily sway you by 30.48cm.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

What has the 'narrow road' got to do with it? If there isn't room to overtake safely, you wait until there is room. You don't put another road user's life at risk so you can rush to the next set of lights/queue of cars a little quicker.

UK Highway Code says 3 feet. RSA says 1.5m.

But you have 'perspective' that allows you to squeeze a cyclist with no room for maneuver if something unexpected happens?

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

What has the 'narrow road' got to do with it? If there isn't room to overtake safely, you wait until there is room. You don't put another road user's life at risk so you can rush to the next set of lights/queue of cars a little quicker.

UK Highway Code says 3 feet. RSA says 1.5m.

But you have 'perspective' that allows you to squeeze a cyclist with no room for maneuver if something unexpected happens?

Do you know what would happen if a truck tyre blew out and you were standing beside it? You would die. I see cyclists all the time passing stationary trucks on the inside at traffic lights. That risk doesn't seem to bother them.

T-K-O

RainyDay wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?



Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?


I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.


Do we really need the amateur psychology?


You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.




Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

Sure..

That vdeo doesn't do anything for cyclists.

As stated previously my girlfriend cycles and it's a constant worry, this guy and this video doesn't help matters

desertcircus

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you know what would happen if a truck tyre blew out and you were standing beside it? You would die. I see cyclists all the time passing stationary trucks on the inside at traffic lights. That risk doesn't seem to bother them.

Because the risk of a left-hand truck tyre blowing out while the truck is stationary in traffic and a cyclist is filtering past at exactly the wrong moment is basically zero.

Eric Cartman

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Cyclist comes across as a complete wanker too to be honest.

+1 this video just reminds me of yer man Liam on youtube who cycles round in the middle of the road looking for trouble and videos himself giving out to drivers for him trying to injure himself.

Its people like this that cause the negativity towards cyclists.

pablo128

desertcircus wrote: »

Because the risk of a left-hand truck tyre blowing out while the truck is stationary in traffic and a cyclist is filtering past at exactly the wrong moment is basically zero.

As is the chance of a cyclist swerving a foot either side of him as a car is passing.

desertcircus

pablo128 wrote: »

As is the chance of a cyclist swerving a foot either side of him as a car is passing.

Nope, not true. Cyclists have been killed in exactly this way.

colossus-x

I think any cyclist can take as much video as they bloody well please. A video is just a recording of some event that actually happened. CCTV does the same thing. Taking video does not cause any event to happen. However I don't' think it's on for the cyclist to chase down the driver in that fashion. The demeanor of the driver is irrelevant. If he broke a law the cyclist should report it to the police, it's not up to the cyclists to enforce the law.

Btw, the front view of the camera doesn't look that close to me. Cars pass by me that close all the time on the country roads here although it's would be impossible to measure just by looking at that video.

pablo128

desertcircus wrote: »

Nope, not true. Cyclists have been killed in exactly this way.

Plenty of people have been killed by truck tyres blowing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEeuvka_tQk

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you know what would happen if a truck tyre blew out and you were standing beside it? You would die. I see cyclists all the time passing stationary trucks on the inside at traffic lights. That risk doesn't seem to bother them.

Certainly not a risk that I've ever considered, but I'm interested to hear more. I had a look at part of your video, most seemed to involve incidents at a fair speed. And the risk would equally apply to pedestrians on a footpath, close to stopped trucks, right? Has there ever been a case anywhere in the world where a cyclist was killed as a result of a truck tyre blowout? Some kind of report on such a case would be helpful in evaluating the risk?

TBH, it's never a great idea to undertake trucks, due to the risk of being caught by a truck turning left, but that's for another day.

pablo128 wrote: »

As is the chance of a cyclist swerving a foot either side of him as a car is passing.

So the UK Highway Code requirement for 3' passing space and the RSA advice for 1.5m passing space is just fussing then? Did you stop to think why these recommendations exist?

colossus-x wrote: »

If he broke a law the cyclist should report it to the police, it's not up to the cyclists to enforce the law.

Choosing to speak to another adult about something they've done is not 'enforcing the law'. It's just speaking to another adult.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

So the UK Highway Code requirement for 3' passing space and the RSA advice for 1.5m passing space is just fussing then? Did you stop to think why these recommendations exist?
.

They are just that. Recommendations. They don't hold any legal weight.

Shane Fitz

RainyDay wrote:

Choosing to speak to another adult about something they've done is not 'enforcing the law'. It's just speaking to another adult.

Oh please!!
You talk a lot of sense and are prepared and able to back it up.
But when you gloss over and become an apologist for this cyclist in this particular video it takes from you case of general driver and cyclist behaviour.

Adult conversation. Seriously?
How about we imagine that both were pedestrians and one followed the other for some considerable distance to "converse" on the others behaviour on the pavement.
No one here would condone it so please tell me why you feel it's appropriate in this instance.

And "the police won't do anything so he had to himself" is the weakest of weak arguments.

RainyDay

pablo128 wrote: »

They are just that. Recommendations. They don't hold any legal weight.

I'm not an expert on UK traffic law. Are you? Are you telling me that Rule 163 is 'just a recommendation'?
http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/163

Shane Fitz wrote: »

Adult conversation. Seriously?
How about we imagine that both were pedestrians and one followed the other for some considerable distance to "converse" on the others behaviour on the pavement.

It's a fairly unlikely scenario. The reason why 'considerable distance' was involved was because of the difference in acceleration of the two parties, which wouldn't normally be the case for two pedestrians.

Shane Fitz wrote: »

No one here would condone it so please tell me why you feel it's appropriate in this instance.

And "the police won't do anything so he had to himself" is the weakest of weak arguments.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why it is inappropriate? What is so wrong with one adult speaking politely to another adult (which is how the cyclist started out) about the impact of the other adult's behaviour on them?

Shane Fitz

RainyDay wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to explain why it is inappropriate? What is so wrong with one adult speaking politely to another adult (which is how the cyclist started out) about the impact of the other adult's behaviour on them?

You need that explained? Really?

Ok. If the driver had stopped to engage in said conversation then ok. The fact that the cyclist pursued him is the issue.
I freely acknowledge the driver is a tool, and even allowing for the distorted perspective of the cameras, drove too close to the cyclist.
But any moral high ground he is claiming, or you, is ruined by his subsequent behaviour.
You and I and everyone on this thread know full well he didn't pursue him to have an adult conversation. To claim otherwise is disingenuous!!

Stealthfins

It looks to me as if this guy is cycling around looking for trouble.

Wasn't there some Irish guy on YouTube at the same ****e.

Cycling around Dublin annoying driver's.

JONJO THE MISER

Nearly knocked a person crossing the road when chasing the car, a good thumping is what he would want, knock the smart Alec out of him.

RainyDay

Shane Fitz wrote: »

You and I and everyone on this thread know full well he didn't pursue him to have an adult conversation. To claim otherwise is disingenuous!!

The cyclist started out with an adult conversation. The driver dragged it down into abuse and then violence.

Shane Fitz wrote: »

You need that explained? Really?

Yes please. Still waiting to hear why an adult can't have a civil discussion with another adult.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

The cyclist started out with an adult conversation. The driver dragged it down into abuse and then violence.

Maybe some ol' fashioned lovin' called for here......



....though whether the GoPro camera would be the right shape for the kind of lovin' needed is a whole other question. :eek:

RainyDay

Stealthfins wrote: »

Cycling around Dublin annoying drivers who threaten his safety so they can get to the back of the next queue of cars a few seconds early

FYP

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

The cyclist started out with an adult conversation. The driver dragged it down into abuse and then violence.

Yes please. Still waiting to hear why an adult can't have a civil discussion with another adult.

I was on the motorway about 5 months ago and saw a local cyclist turn onto the motorway and proceed past the signs saying no bicycles allowed.
And then to make matters worse a cop car passed by and did nothing.
Why?

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

I was on the motorway about 5 months ago and saw a local cyclist turn onto the motorway and proceed past the signs saying no bicycles allowed.
And then to make matters worse a cop car passed by and did nothing.
Why?

Perhaps you should be asking the cop, or asking the local Supt instead of asking me. Am I now responsible for every cyclist in the country?

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

Perhaps you should be asking the cop, or asking the local Supt instead of asking me. Am I now responsible for every cyclist in the country?

No need, he was driving a car at the time. I never said he was on a bicycle.:pac:
I thought since you were posting in riddles, so would I.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

No need, he was driving a car at the time. I never said he was on a bicycle.:pac:
I thought since you were posting in riddles, so would I.

OK then

Wright

RainyDay wrote: »

What has the 'narrow road' got to do with it? If there isn't room to overtake safely, you wait until there is room.

Yes, and that's the issue. Driver in the video drove right past him giving him no room because he had an attitude towards cyclists. Forced the cyclist right up on the parked car.
Had I been driving I would have just bloody waited while the cyclist went on ahead.

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

The cyclist started out with an adult conversation. The driver dragged it down into abuse and then violence.

Yes please. Still waiting to hear why an adult can't have a civil discussion with another adult.

The cyclist started off by roaring at the car as it was passing and shouting out the reg number.

Wright wrote: »

Yes, and that's the issue. Driver in the video drove right past him giving him no room because he had an attitude towards cyclists. Forced the cyclist right up on the parked car.
Had I been driving I would have just bloody waited while the cyclist went on ahead.

Now that's just a blatant lie. The cyclist never changed his course as he was being passed.

WillyFXP

RainyDay wrote: »

Originally Posted by WillyFXP View Post
How can you say the driver drove within a couple of inches of the handlebars? At no point do you see the handlebars in the video. There would have been no incident "brought about or initiated" if the cyclist hadn't purposely followed him to confront him.




Have a look at the photo. There would have been no incident 'brought about or initiated' if the driver had given him a decent 1.5m passing space, or held back until such a space was available.

How does this relate in any way to my statement? There is no evidence whatsoever in that photo giving any reference to distance of the car from the bicycle.

roverrules

RainyDay wrote: »

Certainly not a risk that I've ever considered, but I'm interested to hear more. I had a look at part of your video, most seemed to involve incidents at a fair speed. And the risk would equally apply to pedestrians on a footpath, close to stopped trucks, right? Has there ever been a case anywhere in the world where a cyclist was killed as a result of a truck tyre blowout? Some kind of report on such a case would be helpful in evaluating the risk?

TBH, it's never a great idea to undertake trucks, due to the risk of being caught by a truck turning left, but that's for another day.


So the UK Highway Code requirement for 3' passing space and the RSA advice for 1.5m passing space is just fussing then? Did you stop to think why these recommendations exist?



Choosing to speak to another adult about something they've done is not 'enforcing the law'. It's just speaking to another adult.

No it wasnt, it was a classic example of two people exhibiting road rage

Shane Fitz

RainyDay wrote:

Yes please. Still waiting to hear why an adult can't have a civil discussion with another adult.

Get off your cross and stop playing the persecuted cyclist!

There was no intent for the cyclist to have a civilised discussion.
If you were perused for several streets to have a discussion on your behaviour as a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian you nor I would be very receptive to that conversation and well you know it.

Casey78

The cyclist in this video was being a dick.

RainyDay

WillyFXP wrote: »

How does this relate in any way to my statement? There is no evidence whatsoever in that photo giving any reference to distance of the car from the bicycle.

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see the difference between that photo and this one?



The photo clearly shows that the car was way too close to the bike.

pablo128 wrote: »

The cyclist started off by roaring at the car as it was passing and shouting out the reg number.

It was a fairly natural human reaction to having your life put at risk by another road user. And the car was well out of earshot before he got to the reg number.

Shane Fitz wrote: »

Get off your cross and stop playing the persecuted cyclist!

There was no intent for the cyclist to have a civilised discussion.
If you were perused for several streets to have a discussion on your behaviour as a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian you nor I would be very receptive to that conversation and well you know it.

So you've backed off explaining why any adult can't have a civilised conversation with another adult. And btw, why are you so certain that he was 'pursued' - perhaps the cyclist was just heading that way anyway?

Wright

pablo128 wrote: »

The cyclist started off by roaring at the car as it was passing and shouting out the reg number.

Now that's just a blatant lie. The cyclist never changed his course as he was being passed.

He was almost clipped by the cars wing mirror have you not watched the video?

Or is it you've just got something against cyclists?

Wright

Casey78 wrote: »

The cyclist in this video was being a dick.

Undoubtedly.

But the driver clearly had a negative attitude towards cyclists. His own words prove that. Had he not, he would have been far more courteous coming up behind the cyclist.

pablo128

Wright wrote: »

He was almost clipped by the cars wing mirror have you not watched the video?

Or is it you've just got something against cyclists?

I have just watched the video again. There isn't even a car beside him when he was passed. Please don't come on here, blatantly lie, and then accuse me of having something against cyclists.

Shane Fitz

How about stop selectively quoting me and read all I posted again.
There is no reason why 2 civilised adults behaving civilly toward each other can't have an adult discussion..... You really need that spelled out for you? ?
We aren't discussing any adult, we're discussing this particular video
In the instance of the video, neither were behaving civilly.
I'm pretty sure, as are you, that the cyclist did pursue the motorist for the sole purpose of expressing himself.
2 idiots behaving idiotically!

Wright

pablo128 wrote: »

I have just watched the video again. There isn't even a car beside him when he was passed. Please don't come on here, blatantly lie, and then accuse me of having something against cyclists.

The wing mirror that almost clipped him as he drove past?

Oh! You're willfully blind. Got ya.

WillyFXP

RainyDay wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that you can't see the difference between that photo and this one?



The photo clearly shows that the car was way too close to the bike.

Of course I can see the difference between the two photos, one clearly shows the cyclist in relation to the car, one shows the side of a car giving no reference to it's position in relation to the cyclist, simples.
How does it clearly show that the car was way too close to the bike? Please explain in detail, giving reference points and distances, and also the formula you used to calculate those distances.

Wright

WillyFXP wrote: »

Of course I can see the difference between the two photos, one clearly shows the cyclist in relation to the car, one shows the side of a car giving no reference to it's position in relation to the cyclist, simples.
How does it clearly show that the car was way too close to the bike? Please explain in detail, giving reference points and distances, and also the formula you used to calculate those distances.

Look at the wing mirror and stop being willfully thick.

Tenzor07

Getting wayy too serious in here so: