[Closed] Edinburgh Cyclist and Jaguar

[img] [/img]Hmm. That would be a great colour for a bike frame.

Can I borrow yours?

I don't have one.
That's why I don't base my arguments on pretending I do.

That would be mental.

Because it seems far more likely to me that the cyclist is simply ignoring the car and it just happens that the convenient space is in front of it, than deliberately putting himself in front of it to piss the driver off. Give me one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise

Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver, without your crystal ball we don't know.
We do know that the Jag driver is already a bit pissed off due to being cut up by the cyclist.
That is why it would be sensible to stay behind the car, where you have more control.
It is a safer position to adopt.

This is a pointless discussion though as you have already nailed your colours to the mast and it is obvious that safety isi not your priority.

[quote=sbob ]Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver

You wrote "choosing to position himself" - apologies if you didn't express yourself clearly, and didn't mean that being directly in front of the Jag was anything other than an accident.

Or are you going to suggest there's also a third option here apart from him deliberately putting himself in front of that car and it being a coincidence?

This is a pointless discussion though as you have already nailed your colours to the mast and it is obvious that safety isi not your priority.

Exactly what have I written which gives you that idea? Or are you employing your non-existent crystal ball again?

[img] [/img]

Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver, without your crystal ball we don't know.
We do know that the Jag driver is already a bit pissed off due to being cut up by the cyclist.
That is why it would be sensible to stay behind the car, where you have more control.
It is a safer position to adopt.

Maybe, but the traffic also moved as the cyclist passed the Jag, and the cyclist kept pace - it's where I would sit at that particular moment in time. Difference is I probably wouldn't have bothered reprimanding the Jag driver.

As for who's wrong and who's right - in my mind the Jag driver is an utter twunt, but starting with a 'c'.

are you disputing the law I've given you a link to?

You are still doing it!
How can you continue to try and use that tactic when I have so clearly pointed it out?

I'm disputing that the cyclist had room to move into. You know this. You quoted me on it.

There is room for me to get my Micra down the left hand side of that queue.
Would you advise me to drive up the left hand side of that queue if I intended to turn right at the end?

I'd genuinely like an answer and an explanation.

[quote=sbob ]I'm disputing that the cyclist had room to move into.
...
There is room for me to get my Micra down the left hand side of that queue.

😕

Can I check exactly what it is you're arguing here? Are you suggesting he didn't give way at the give way lines or something different?

aracer - Member

You wrote "choosing to position himself" - apologies if you didn't express yourself clearly, and didn't mean that being directly in front of the Jag was anything other than an accident.

Or are you going to suggest there's also a third option here apart from him deliberately putting himself in front of that car and it being a coincidence?

Are you simple?
Of course the cyclist chose to position himself in front of the Jag. What we don't know is whether or not he did this to antagonize the driver.
It's you that is claiming to have this knowledge, which you don't, not I.

I don't think anyone else here is having trouble understanding my posts, it is just you.
You may want to think about that.

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

I'm merely saying that there's bugger all evidence in that video to suggest the driver did much wrong. Without actual witness statements the most likely police response would be to call the cyclist an antagonising wee bawbag. I'll put money on this guy posting another 'near miss' video in the future-if he lives long enough to do so.

aracer - Member

Can I check exactly what it is you're arguing here?

You seem to be struggling to understand the simple English I have been using in my posts, see GrahamS' post for what I am suggesting the cyclist should have done, as he is in complete agreement with me.

I'd still like an answer.

Bit late to the party here but IMO both the driver and the cyclist are nobbers.

neilsonwheels - Member

Bit late to the party here but IMO both the driver and the cyclist are nobbers

Far too sensible a position, pick a side and fight to the death.

Well I reckon you'd have to mount the kerb at 0:10, so I'd not advise it in your Micra. Clearly and legally you can filter on a bicycle, and as there almost always isn't room between cars to pull into when they're in a stationary queue like that it is standard practice to wait for gaps to open up once traffic starts moving. You don't do that in a Micra.

Though having made lots of accusations of tactics against me, I note you're now avoiding the question of whether you still think the cyclist didn't give way at the first junction as you asserted earlier...

Ahhh the UK and the type of letter of the law bullshit comments in this thread.

It's an outrage I tell you! No, the cyclist is a cock.

I may regret joining in...

but I'm not very sure there was contact between the Jag and the bike. It looks to me (not there, don't know, etc) that the Jag was further away from the bike after the fall than would have been the case had there been a bump. Otherwise, he'd have hit the bus too?

Might I also be so bold as to postulate the that Jag driver really was an officer of the law? Despite the ongoing discussion I got the impression of some room between car and bike. That doesn't explain why the car drove away, unless it was to get off the main road so the driver could walk back to assist. I wonder what the next few minutes of film showed, or indeed the cameras that the bus driver mentioned.

I don't know the junction, but got the impression that the choice of position by the cyclist could have been better - he said at the start that the driver was ignoring him, but chose to join the line of traffic there anyway. As others have said, the whole thing could have been so easily avoided.

My crystal ball/blatant construction says he was riding fixed on a road bike and caught the front mudguard with his foot.

aracer - Member

Though having made lots of accusations of tactics against me, I note you're now avoiding the question of whether you still think the cyclist didn't give way at the first junction as you asserted earlier...

I've made my position clear, as have you.
You're condoning actions that did lead to a conflict between driver and cyclist.
This is undeniable.
I'm suggesting a different course of action that may not have led to a conflict between driver and cyclist.

It's as simple as that.
Choose a definite bad outcome or a possible good one.

I suppose it takes all sorts, and masochism isn't necessarily a crime.
😆

Which sad sack films their commute to work?

Do thet masturbate at the footage when they get home?

Actually, that's not a bad idea. How much are these little cameras?

Which sad sack films their commute to work?

Lots of people. It's growing in popularity, on bikes and also in cars.

The footage is often the essential evidence that lets something happen (e.g. insurance payout, police action)

The wait behind the cars at the first junction idea is, frankly, bobbins. During commute times there is pretty much an unlimited number of cars behind you, if you join the back of the queue by the time you get to turning right you'll have a car behind you and if the driver is impatient you end up in the same situation as our boy in the video. The locals have already made it clear it's a shitty junction for cyclists to turn right at, there's one near me, hold secondary the drivers behind overtake and squeeze you into the kerb on the exit, hold primary and they undertake leading to who knows what on exit and there's the risk of someone going straight on just wiping you out whatever position you adopt.

So unless you want to spend longer getting to work than by car pick a place to cut in, front is probably best as you aren't singling any driver out for "pushing infront of" but not always doable if traffic starts moving on your approach (and if the driver at the front is a nutter you still get the rage effect jag guy showed).

Bikes and cars move at different speeds there's always going to be a cat and mouse effect we just all have to accept bikes will be cutting in and out of traffic as roads widen/narrow and traffic flow increases and decreases, the alternative is no one ever passing each other unless there is more than one lane - see how long drivers put up with [b]never[/b] overtaking a cyclist on standard single lane roads, reckon drivers would get bored of that before cyclists got bored of never filtering.

ok....im going to bite...

tpbiker » I dont see any contact there.

Well I guess the camera isn't actually pointing towards the car at that point

Have seen a few people make this comment - do you really think the cyclist is making up the collision?

POSTED 18 HOURS AGO #

You love twisting things for your own argument don't you aracer. Please point out where I said he made up the collision. I'm implying he may have fallen off without contact because he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing, which is entirely possible. A number of people have expressed the same view.

But no doubt you'll come back ridiculing this rational with some reason why this is impossible, followed up with some slightly patronising smilie for good measure.

Is aracer filling some pretty big shoes of a now departed Big Hitter?

The wait behind the cars at the first junction idea is, frankly, bobbins. During commute times there is pretty much an unlimited number of cars behind you, if you join the back of the queue by the time you get to turning right you'll have a car behind you and if the driver is impatient you end up in the same situation as our boy in the video.

At the start of the video he could have joined that queue between the blue and red car.

The red car is actually hanging back and obeying the Keep Clear at the junction (a rare sight) so that marks them as someone I'd be happy to have behind me.

[img] [/img]

More importantly that would have allowed the cyclist to join the queue in the primary position and hold the lane through the junction.

Instead he (illegally) filtered up the left hand side of traffic when he knew he wanted to turn right at the lights. That was a dumb move and put him in direct conflict with other road users and forced him to try and get from the secondary to the primary as he crossed a junction with a car on his right.

(None of that excuses the actions of the Jag driver)

I still think this is largely the driver being a dick, however not taking primary when you intend to turn right is daft.

Trying to turn right from the left hand side of a lane and relying on the good will of others isn't clever.

that marks them as someone I'd be happy to have behind me.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. How much are these little cameras?

Very useful during urban summer commuting. Especially on cycle paths through parks.

Just a thought...

So unless you want to spend longer getting to work than by car pick a place to cut in,

And herein lies the problem. Are we cycling to beat the cars or because we want to be healthy and cut costs? I commute 30miles once a week and at no point do I ever 'cut in'. Where I'm turning right I join the queue if traffic at the rear, and wait. It boils my piss to see cyclists filter up the inside of a moving line of vehicles. Ok, they'll get to work marginally faster but significantly more unsafely.

E_M_C filtering moving traffic you may have a point, stationary traffic I don't see a problem, like I said wait or filter either method could end up with an impatient cock behind you.

Yes filtering [i]may[/i] upset some but just being a cyclist on the road upsets some drivers so... mleh.

Cyclists pass drivers stuck in traffic, drivers pass cyclists when traffic starts to flow; as long as both are done in a reasonable, safe fashion it's just business as usual.

[quote=sbob ]I've made my position clear, as have you.

Ah, OK, so you're sticking by the assertion that he didn't give way at the first junction then. Which is quite clearly incorrect given the law I provided a link to, and we can probably judge the rest of your opinions on that basis.

You're condoning actions that did lead to a conflict between driver and cyclist.

Well I'm condoning one of them. I condone the cyclist being on the road. I don't condone the driver being a knob.

Because since you're here again, lets review all of your arguments:

Fails to overtake the Jag properly.

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.

He filters. As I mentioned before, it is normal not to find a gap in a queue big enough to insert a bicycle whilst the queue is stationary. Then when the queue moves off the gaps open up and you can insert yourself into one of them and become part of the traffic. This is the way filtering works, filtering is totally legal, this is what he does. He overtakes the Jag properly after the lights turn green, and is quite clearly completely in front of it before he moves across at all. He doesn't "force" himself in front of it, simply moves into a space which is available when the traffic is moving. At this point he is now in front of the Jag "holding it up" which is actually the issue here.

Personally as somebody else suggested I think I would have ignored the letter of the law and moved right to the front, but it's quite clear that plenty on here would condemn him for breaking the law even if it is the safest thing to do (and ignoring cars routinely breaking the law in more dangerous ways). I'm also happy to defer to the only person on this thread with experience of using that junction.

Deliberately positions himself infront of the driver he's had an altercation with.

We've also done this one with you using your non-existent crystal ball. Don't go claiming you mean he simply inserted himself in the traffic queue - it's quite clear what you mean. An assertion there is no evidence for at all.

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.

As I just pointed out, he moved into a gap, no forcing going on - I mean you can't exactly force anything from a tonne of steel when riding a bicycle. He was in front, he had priority - how he got there is irrelevant, though he didn't do anything wrong to get there.

I'm guessing using the term "give way lines" is probably causing you greater confusion.

At no point, despite me using the term "give way" do you even for one moment consider that the cyclist should, or even could have given way to the traffic already established on the road he intends to enter.

The only confusion over the give way lines appears to be you misunderstanding what they actually mean - I gave a link to the law to clarify that he did give way.

Sitting in the traffic won't stop cars cutting you up.

What are you talking about?
It was the cyclist who cut up the driver in the video that we are discussing, not the other way around.

Let's review this one on the basis of the law on giving way I linked to - it's not directly applicable, but it seems a reasonable basis to use. Did the cyclist do anything "likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle"? Did the cyclist "cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident"? No - the driver was in no danger, didn't have to brake, and only had to change course because he decided to overtake, not to avoid an accident. Not exactly "cutting up" is it? The cyclist just positioned himself in front of the car, which seems to result in an issue due to the normalisation that cyclists should get out of the way.

Of course all of that is irrelevant to the driver maintaining his anger and hitting the cyclist with his car further up the road. You claim it is a single incident, but it isn't - the second bit is only related to the first by the driver's anger.

[quote=tpbiker ]You love twisting things for your own argument don't you aracer. Please point out where I said he made up the collision.

er, I think it's here:

I'm implying he may have fallen off without contact because he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing

though I was previously referring to this:

I dont see any contact there.

If you think there was no contact, then you think the cyclist is making up the collision - I'm not sure what other possible interpretation there is, or how that is twisting things.

perhaps, or they could have been that curious breed who are patient for other drivers but gets nowty with cyclists - we've no idea same as prior to incident we didn't know about jag driver (car prejudices aside)

They [i]might[/i] have been, that's not something you can really factor for is it?

But on the balance of probabilities I'd say that behaving like other vehicles and accepting the place offered behind the blue car with eye contact and a cheery wave of thanks to the courteous driver of the red car is far less likely to end in conflict than filtering up the left (illegally or not) then cutting in front of a shiny penis extension because you actually want to turn right.

(again this doesn't excuse how the Jag driver responded)

hitting the cyclist with his car

I don't think there is any proof that that happened, which is probably partly why the guy himself hasn't reported it. Anyone who actually was hit by a car would report it instantly.

I see you are still condoning the actions that did lead to conflict.
An interesting position to take.
I'll point out why you are still clearly wrong, but it will have to wait until later.

Merry Christmas.
In a twist of fate, try staying on the moors and keeping off the roads.
🙂

[quote=bigjim ]

hitting the cyclist with his car

I've seen plenty of threads on here where people have been hit by cars and not reported it. People don't report getting hit by cars, mainly because they're not sure what good it will do or have reported incidents before and little was done. It might take hours of their time and nothing happens - easy to become a cynic.

Oh, look what the cyclist has to say in the comments:
"I ask because I'm not sure what good it will do. Ive had worse and little was done."
"They 'have a word' and it takes 3 hours of my time and nothing happens. 😛 i am becoming a cycnic"

Anything new happened?

It boils my piss to see cyclists filter up the inside of a moving line of vehicles

And herein lies the problem. Are we cycling to beat the cars or because we want to be healthy and cut costs?

I very much doubt that filtering has a statistically significant effect on the safety (or otherwise) of cycling for transport (so long as we exclude those people who filter down the inside of lorries turning left, but that isn't what we're discussing).

Are we cycling to beat the cars or because we want to be healthy and cut costs?

http://www.strava.com/segments/2555256

It surprises me in this day and age that people will spend pages/hours debating what might have happened when they could just message the guy on youtube and ask him to clarify what happened. He might not respond, but since he saw fit to post the video I imagine he'd be only too happy to discuss what's happened. Especially on a cycling forum.

FWIW I don't imagine the Jag would have sped off like that, nor would the bus driver have had that look on his face had there not been some contact. He might not have properly shunted him but that's hardly the point. In my mind if you try to hit a cyclist with your car it's no different than trying to hit a pedestrian and should be viewed as a serious crime.

Comment on youtube? Are you insane? It's depressing enough discussing it on here.

Looks like he stalled and fell off. He needs to learn to track stand better while arguing with motorists.

Adds chunky to the list 🙄

[img] [/img]

D0NK - Member

Comment on youtube? Are you insane? It's depressing enough discussing it on here.

No you could just message him directly. Though that's nowhere near as interesting as hypothesizing.