[Closed] Edinburgh Cyclist and Jaguar

If you are wearing a go pro on your commute, this will happen.

He shouldn't have gone up the inside of the Jag in the first place;

If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)

I think we should see what mumsnet thinks - they seem more inclined to think cyclists have a right to be on the road than people on this forum.

[quote=euans2 ]I think the cyclist caused that whole incident and made a meal out of the falling off the bike part.

Yeah, nothing at all to do with the innocent Jaguar driver aiming his car at him several times 🙄 I mean the cyclist should really have been able to ride it out when he eventually made contact.

[quote=irelanst ]He shouldn't have gone up the inside of the Jag in the first place;

Not even when there was space between the Jag and the chevrons? It's pretty much impossible to tell from the video, but I reckon it's quite likely he never did enter the chevron area. It looks a lot like he stops behind the front car because there is no longer space for him to pass without entering that area.

cyclist shouldnt have been on the chevrons, illegal place to be. He then expects to get treated 'as a vehicle' when pulling out from them. Daft arrogant rider and short fused driver - never going to work out 🙁

[i]shouldnt have been on the chevrons, illegal place to be[/i]

I've not bothered with the video but what was the outline;

[i]Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.[/i]

it is difficult to tell from the footage whether it is the cyclist swerving towards the car as he turns his head or the car turning towards him. When the driver is shouting at the cyclist the gap closes but the drivers hands do not move the steering wheel. The cyclist was in the wrong position to turn right at the junction to start with. really unclear as to whether the car and cyclist actually touched. Cyclist needs to put it down to experience and learn a lesson. driver needs to remember he will always win in a collision so just let it go. 2 c0cks brought together by circumstance.

I think we should see what mumsnet thinks - they seem more inclined to think cyclists have a right to be on the road than people on this forum.

I don't think that's the case. In this video in answer to the Youtube posters question, yes the driver should be reported as the behavior and intimidation isn't acceptable. In the real world though this is one of the most congested and dangerous roads for cyclists coming into the north west of the city and cyclists are very vulnerable due to two lanes of often speeding traffic then a bottleneck where it goes down to one lane where this video is shot. The cyclists positioning and aggressiveness doesn't help the situation.

In an ideal world cyclists should be able to get into and out of the city without worrying about any of the above and the facilities for cycling into and out of Edinburgh are pretty shocking. I do feel that a lot of the sensationalist youtube videos (not saying this is one) where the cyclist is constantly on the lookout for anyone breaking the 3 feet boundary and screaming and swearing at anyone who does, doesn't help our case.

[quote=wwaswas ]
I've not bothered with the video but what was the outline;
Solid

The driver should be reported.

However the cyclist was being deliberately antagonistic after the first pass. That doesn't mean he deserves to be knocked over mind.

[quote=MrGrim ]I don't think that's the case. In this video in answer to the Youtube posters question, yes the driver should be reported as the behavior and intimidation isn't acceptable. In the real world though this is one of the most congested and dangerous roads for cyclists coming into the north west of the city and cyclists are very vulnerable due to two lanes of often speeding traffic then a bottleneck where it goes down to one lane where this video is shot. The cyclists positioning and aggressiveness doesn't help the situation.

Did you read the recent mumsnet thread? Far, far more sympathetic to cyclists using the road and being assertive in their use of it to maintain their safety than any thread on here - this one being a good example. In the real world, it is still an offence to drive your car at a cyclist even if the cyclist is a complete arse - which I don't believe this cyclist is. The road might be dangerous, but the driver doesn't knock him off because of that, the driver knocks him off because he uses his car as a weapon and deliberately aims it at the cyclist. The cyclist certainly wasn't perfect - personally I think I'd have hung further back in the queue at the first junction, but then I can understand why he might think it safer not to do so. However that is no excuse whatsoever for the driver's behaviour. If ton isn't trolling up there, then personally I find that a completely disgusting attitude.

Cyclists do have a right to be on the roads, they do have a right to ride assertively. A lot of the complaints against the cyclist behaviour on this and other similar threads are related to them not getting out of the way of the cars - an attitude which was very much in the minority on the mumsnet thread, and pointed out to be incorrect by the majority. I wasn't being ironic at all in pointing out the differences in attitude between mumsnet and here.

Cyclists do have a right to be on the roads, they do have a right to ride assertively.

Assertively yes, but not in a manner designed to cause aggravation. The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic. Nobody here is going to say that he deserved knocking off but he also needs to think about his part in things.

[quote=atlaz ]Assertively yes, but not in a manner designed to cause aggravation. The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic.

So what should the penalty be for riding in a manner designed to cause aggravation? £30 fine? Get knocked off by a car?

Not that I believe he did - presumably you're referring to when he pulled in behind the bus as there wasn't space between the bus and the traffic island and he could see the traffic was moving off? That quite clearly wasn't antagonistic.

Nobody here is going to say that he deserved knocking off but he also needs to think about his part in things.

Exactly what part did he play in the car driving into him? If you're not saying he deserved to be knocked off, what should his punishment be?

If it was me I'd have been in front of the indicating Audi and gone on the M of amber.
Fastest way to work is to not get involved with shit like in the video.

Both prats, driver is dangerous with it though.

Did he actually knock him off?*

If the cyclist was concentrating on what he was doing rather than looking behind making the situation worse he could have stayed upright. He's looking for trouble and found it, not big or clever.*

Whats with looking into the front of each car he passes too, doing it too late to be checking for passengers opening doors on him...

*not in any way condoning drivers actions, just questioning the result before the militant section start.

[quote=jamesfts ]Both prats, driver is dangerous with it though.
Did he actually knock him off?*

Well he hit him with his car. The outcome is fairly irrelevant.

I'm still not sure in what was the cyclist is a prat, goes looking for trouble or his actions are in any way at all comparable with that of the driver. Nor that it is militant to suggest cyclists have a right to be on the roads and not be assaulted.

Dear me racer - that was the most antagonistic bit! He could easily have gone past the bus on either side. He would've then been long gone by the time the bus stopped at the bus stop.

On a lighter note - is that James Robertson Justice driving the bus?

g5604 - Member
If you are wearing a go pro on your commute, this will happen.

Yay! There he is!

[quote=shifter ]He could easily have gone past the bus on either side.

Small gaps, bus about to move (it's already moving off by the time he looks forwards a second after pulling into the gap). No thanks. Though it does neatly illustrate the point that just being on the road getting in the way of a car is seen as antagonistic.

Well he hit him with his car. The outcome is fairly irrelevant.

Genuine question, from the video I couldn't tell if they touched, got rammed or if he just fell over.

They actions aren't comparable but the cyclist had the opportunity to completely avoid the situation but went chasing after a driver who was evidently a ****t from their previous actions.

[quote=jamesfts ]the cyclist had the opportunity to completely avoid the situation but went chasing after a driver who was evidently a ****t from their previous actions.

Eh? From what I could work out the cyclist was trying to get somewhere on a commute. The fact the Jaguar driver happened to be in front of him was totally irrelevant. What was he supposed to do, go a different way? I presume this is related to the idea that overtaking a queue of traffic is a deliberate attempt to aggravate drivers.

Interestingly it seems to be the driver who then went a different way after the incident - where does the side road he nipped down go?

I don't understand what you don't get.

If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place.

The same would be sensible regardless of cycling or driving, let the idiot passed so they can have their accident/road rage whatever they're intent on doing further down the road and not with you.

Cyclist was a cock from the off.
Fails to overtake the Jag properly.
Fails to understand that indicating does not give you automatic right of way.
Deliberately positions himself infront of the driver he's had an altercation with.
If I was unhappy with a driver's driving the last thing I would do is position myself directly in front of them!

The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic

Judging from the cyclist's talking he was already trying to start something with the jag from the first corner.

[i]If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place[/i]

But he needed footage for his video!
(I don't think this, but sarcasm is hard to convey)

[quote=jamesfts ]If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day

Slowed down briefly at what point? The trouble is the Jag was stuck in a queue of traffic rather than going about his day, so rather hard for the cyclist to avoid catching him up.

[quote=sbob ]Fails to overtake the Jag properly.

When and how?

Fails to understand that indicating does not give you automatic right of way.

No, but being in front does.

[quote=bigjim ]Judging from the cyclist's talking he was already trying to start something with the jag from the first corner.

Oh I give up. You lot have all clearly been brainwashed by the idea that cyclists must get out of the way of cars. I'm off to mumsnet to find more sensible discussion.

Do people on here not ride bikes?
"If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place. "
He is on a bike in traffic he is always going to catch the car up no matter if he waits 2 minutes . the video shows that even given the big gap after the lights and riding slowly he still catches the Jag. The fact that cars are slower than bikes probably explains why the Jag driver chose to run away down a side street after the hit and run.

[quote=crankboy ]Do people on here not ride bikes?

I suggest mumsnet if you want to talk to people who do.

Just made a detour to have another look at the junction. While I accept the law about solid line chevrons. I will repeat I do not have the foggiest idea why they are there. They do not seem to perform any useful function at all. This is one of the very few junctions where I would condone law breaking. If I had to use it regularly I would roll across the red stop line and treat it as an informal ASL. Not ideal, but I don't see any other solution. The problem you have is if you take the corner wide you risk cars going straight on taking you out. If you take a primary position going around the corner, there is a real risk of knobs going to the left around the outside. It doesn't matter whether you filter or sit in the traffic, it is just as likely to happen, especially as this is a short phase light that encourages aggression from drivers being held up by a bike ahead of them.TBH if that was on my commute I would probably avoid altogether and go straight on where our boy turns left initially. It leads to a back road T junction joining the same bit of d/c, although I accept that means trying to get onto the Queensferry Road without he benefit of a traffic light.

What has riding bikes got to do with anything?

Slowed down/sped up/whatever, he could have avoided the situation he got him self into. I'm not blaming him for the actions of the Jag driver, just saying it was avoidable.

There was no need for him to cut in front of the Jag but he did it anyway putting him self in a dangerous place with a driver who has already shown himself to be aggressive and have a problem with the cyclist.

[quote=jamesfts ]There was no need for him to cut in front of the Jag but he did it anyway

No he didn't. He pulled back into the queue behind the bus. I'm sure if there had been another car in front of the Jag he'd have pulled in front of that - I don't think he even thought about the car when he pulled into the queue there, so didn't realise there was likely to be an issue.

But I don't think those who think the cyclist was just out to cause trouble will ever be able to see that.

Worst piece of road positioning ever seen by the cyclist, not just once. Complete waste of police time reporting that motorist. Put money on this guy having history.

[quote=eat_more_cheese ]Complete waste of police time reporting that motorist. Put money on this guy having history.

Waste of police time? So you don't think they should do anything to him even if he does have history?

Everyone keeps saying the Jag driver drove at him, knocked him off, hit him etc.

I didn't see any contact whatsoever in the video.

Looked like he fell off to me. No contact from the car at all.

No he didn't ... I'm sure ... I don't think …

He [b]could[/b] have hung back a bit or got passed the bus and out of harms way but didn't.

I'm not saying he was out to cause trouble he just could have avoided it but for whatever reason decided not to.

aracer - Member

When and how?

The cyclist pulls left out of the minor road and starts overtaking the line of cars.
He fails to do this properly as there isn't enough room to get in front of the Jag due to the car in front, and there isn't enough room to get in front of the first car due to the stop line.

No, but being in front does.

He doesn't get in front of the Jag, there isn't room.
He stops on the chevrons and then uses an indication to try and force his way in front of the Jag.
Like most bellends on the road, the cyclist's impatience is his downfall.
He went for an overtake that wasn't on and left himself in a position he shouldn't have been in.
He never established himself in the lane.
He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.
Notice how the red car is observing the "keep clear" road markings?
This means he's either broken down in a coincidental location, or he is actually obeying road signs.
This is a good indication that the driver might not actually be a massive cock, and might provide an opportunity to safely pull out.

Unlike the driver of the Jag, who, thanks to the insight of bigjim, is pretty much guaranteed to be a cock.

Oh I give up. You lot have all clearly been brainwashed by the idea that cyclists must get out of the way of cars

That's not what happened.
This isn't about why the cyclist had to get out the way of the car.
This is about a shit cyclist who deliberately chose to put himself in danger by incorrectly deciding he had priority and trying to force cars to get out of his way, when it wasn't his.

[quote=jamesfts ]He could have hung back a bit or got passed the bus and out of harms way but didn't.

A pretty decent explanation of why he didn't pass the bus has already been given. Of course the car two back could have been a homicidal maniac with a gun and he might be still alive because he didn't pull in front of it, but he has no way of knowing that any more than he can tell that the Jag driver will drive at him. when he pulls into the queue in front of him. The cyclists behaviour is perfectly normal for pulling into a queue of traffic - the only reason people are seeing him being antagonistic is because that's what they're looking for. Of course he would have been better off not to pull into the queue there, but it wasn't a conscious decision to go looking for trouble, his only mistake was not realising the Jag driver was an idiot.

[quote=sbob ]He doesn't get in front of the Jag, there isn't room.

Well is he in front of the Jag or behind it?

He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.

Behind which red car?

That's not what happened.
This isn't about why the cyclist had to get out the way of the car.
This is about a shit cyclist who deliberately chose to put himself in danger by incorrectly deciding he had priority and trying to force cars to get out of his way, when it wasn't his.

The incident happened half a mile up the road from where you're suggesting he put himself in the wrong road position. The only connection is the driver with rage, who decided the cyclist is in his way because he's in front. I'm not sure I'd have taken that road position at the first junction, but that is completely irrelevant to the later incident. Unless of course you're suggesting it was reasonable for the Jag driver to aim his car at the cyclist because the cyclist got it wrong earlier?

geoffj - Member
Could that guy ride any slower?

Lol. There did seem to be some frenetic activity going on below the gaze of the camera so I'm guessing he was spinning like crazy on a single-speed bike with inappropriate gearing...

Looks like the cyclist took a footballer style dive for the purpose of his video 😉

He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.

Doesn't make any difference to the risk posed by the junction.
I think this thread nicely sums up why cycling is seen as unsafe by the general population. The boy on the bike probably doesn't get the junction right, & he is a fool for not anticipating that the Jag driver is a psycho. He should have let it lie.
However, all he was trying to do was negotiate a dangerous junction safely. The problem in this country is that the minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon. An attitude supported by some of the knuckle-dragging attitudes on here. As we see from the video, as with most urban car/bike confrontations: The net effect of the cyclist's actions would be to delay the jag from getting to the back of the queue by a couple ofseconds. Except in this case where he clearly has to make a detour from his normal route down the side road because of his attempted assault. (If he was going down that way noramlly he would have gone straight ahead at the first junction.)

[quote=imnotverygood ]
However, all he was trying to do was negotiate a dangerous junction safely. The problem in this country is that the minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon.The driver beeps pulling across the first junction but doesn't otherwise react. It takes some more gesticulating from the cyclist to wind him up.

Except in this case where he clearly has to make a detour from his normal route down the side road because of his attempted assault. (If he was going down taht way noramlly he would have gone straight ahead at the first junction.)

A pretty decent explanation ... his only mistake was not realising the Jag driver was an idiot.

It was fairly evident from the beeping and mouthing off at each other at the junction that something could easily flair up. Avoiding it entirely would have been the sensible option, for whatever reason (red mist or not) he didn't avoid it.

There are always going to be idiots, the best bet by far is to avoid them at all costs.

minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon. An attitude supported by some of the knuckle-dragging attitudes on here

I haven't seen anyone trying to justify the Jag driver, just saying the cyclist could have avoided an altercation and getting nocked off his bike.

Assuming he doesn't live down that road?