Miss Gautama said the cyclist had long blonde hair worn in a pony tail and was wearing a bright yellow jacket, see-through cycling glasses and black cycling shorts.
Hmmm, could be anyone but maybe the 'see-through' cycling glasses are the give-away as most us ride with non-see-through glasses, don't we? 🙂
She comes across as a mouthy, obnoxious, entitled **** who cuts up cyclists then shouts at them from the safety of her metal box about "consideration", as if having a baby in the car means it's OK for her to barge through anywhere she likes.
He sounds like a childish gorilla who thinks it's in some way acceptable to do his talking with a D lock.
No one emerges from this story with any credit.
Zombie Fignon
Offside rear door - sounds a bit like it was the driver he was pissed off with, rather than the woman
Regardless, either somebody in the car did waaay more than she describes or the cyclist is an arse - I wouldn't smash a window without major provocation, if at all
If the learner deliberately cut up or drove at the biker, then maybe it's a useful lesson learned nice & early
Yep. Driver squeezes cyclist. Cyclist bangs on roof. Passenger could apologise at this point, but, because she's a typical clueless, selfish ****, she gives it the verbals instead, as if the cyclist should just accept being cut up and "have some consideration". Cyclist breaks her ****ing window. Had it not been for the baby in the back then I'd say some natural justice had been served at this point.
But baby, glass, face etc makes the cyclist as bad as her.
I suppose you could say he went for the offside window to avoid the baby but I hope he wasn't aware of it - ****'s trick if he was
These two quotes from her are worrying
She said a cyclist thumped the car roof as he passed and when the car overtook him she leaned out of the window and told him to be more considerate.
If the driver was close enough to have the roof thumped then that's 12 inches or so, not a lot more, which is obviously too close
"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.
She's acknowledging they were too close in a passive way and trying to justify it...
It'd be interesting to see any video evidence of this, sounds like a very close pass...
it reads like he came up behind the car initially and banged on the roof of the car because he couldn't get down the side of it? Whether or not the car driver deliberately pulled across because he saw the cyclist and didn't want him passing is not revealed.
I get that quite a bit, but it's not worth banging a roof over.
I don't see this. If you just went around banging on cars because they were in front of you, you'd get sore fists quickly!
At least she got a pic before removing the baby...
ha ha, this fignon fella took a d-lock to a car window, so it's not beyond a possibility.
London again. Last place on earth you'd get me to move to. So many angry people.
...Had it not been for the baby in the back then I'd say some natural justice had been served at this point.
But baby, glass, face etc makes the cyclist as bad as her.
So the presence of a child is all that makes smashing car windows in unacceptable?
Don't get me wrong, I get why someone lacking in self moderation, a bit stressed, and probably prone to temper tantrums would do something like that in busy rush hour traffic... It's still not right though under any circumstances.
As soon as you resort to violence and/or vandalism you've lost any claim you might have had to the "moral high ground" (if such a thing exists). Especially when the focus of your rage is someone who didn't bare you any real malice, they're just stupid, thoughtless and unused to dealing with any real consequences to their actions...
Thing is though, if she was risking his life by driving like a thoughtless cretin she's unlikely to do it again.
What's the betting that what she actually said included the words "road tax"?
Not condoning it, at least without [u]exensive[/u] provocation but it is offerng some
Maybe a public service ?real consequences to their actions...
Don't get me wrong, I get why someone lacking in self moderation, a bit stressed, and probably prone to temper tantrums would do something like that in busy rush hour traffic... It's still not right though under any circumstances.
As soon as you resort to violence and/or vandalism you've lost any claim you might have had to the "moral high ground" (if such a thing exists). Especially when the focus of your rage is someone who didn't bare you any real malice, they're just stupid, thoughtless and unused to dealing with any real consequences to their actions...
Yep - I agree with all of that. I don't condone what he did, nor would I do it myself...
...but she deserved it.
"Stupid, thoughtless" people kill on the roads.
I love how STW passes judgement with absolutely nothing more than a smattering of detail....please none of you become High Court judges.
learner driver with a baby in the back?!?
oh the HUMANITY!!!!11111oneoneone
London again. Last place on earth you'd get me to move to. So many angry people.
One of the things that's great about London is the general lack of mindless prejudice 🙂
Just to clear up - London is one of the best places I have cycled. Never had road rage. In fact, you can get away with most things if you feel the need, because no-one bats an eyelid.
Most of the bad stories on here come from northerners it seems. Certainly find the driving standards way worse when I take the car up there.
With nothing more that a smattering of detail, I am absolutely certain that this is what happens when two bell ends encounter each other in an event of random chance. Mode of transportation and geographical location is irrelevant.
With nothing more that a smattering of detail, I am absolutely certain that this is what happens when two bell ends encounter each other in an event of random chance. Mode of transportation and geographical location is irrelevant.
Are you new here? That sort of rational, calm, logical thought isn't welcome when there are conclusions that can be jumped to, and sweary rage to be vented by the righteous.
As advised by my ex-motorcycle-courier mate, always kick the rear quarter panel, harder to repair
I hope you never do jury service, hebdencyclist.
FWIW a colleague of mine went mental at work a couple of summers ago as some **king c of a bd cycling wer (her words not mine) had come out of nowhere and thrown something (probably a rock, but she wasn't sure) at her shiny car on her way to work. And anyone who saw some c**t in red and blue kit should run them over.
It's the biggest club in the city.
Turns out that the police were looking for her as she'd hooked him with her wing mirror and dumped him into the ditch without even noticing. And the ditch was where he'd got the rock from.
Dunno what the eventual outcome was, but she went very quiet when I sent her a link to the article in the paper. Mentioning the partial plate and half a dozen witnesses.
Attack is the best form of defence it seems.
Sounds like the sort of **** who demands some one should fill his water bottle,
As do those who think it's acceptable to conduct such an act, just beacaus he's on a bike he still has to adhere to the fact that L plates denote some one who is unfamiliar with driving, I doubt that was considered though I mean why would a cyclist adhere to the Highway Code,
I drove into Central London this morning, it was dark, more than half the cyclists had NO lights front or rear, this weekend the clocks go back, no doubt there will be at least 2 deaths next week as cyclists and motorists battle it out, no doubt it will be the motorists fault.
It always is.
Squoglybob you are James Martin and I claim my £5.
Rhiannon
Barnaby
Jasper
I'll just leave that there..
Its difficult to work out what really happened from just one side of the story.
Based on what the driver said and reading between the lines, car squeezes cyclist, cyclist hits roof of car, driver mouths off at cyclist, drives off, if chased by cyclist and cyclist catches them up and ****s window with U lock.
Both retain the view that the other party is a cretin.
Both tools, nobody wins.
Don't be silly. This is an internet forum, not Crown Court.I hope you never do jury service, hebdencyclist.
Cyclist sounds like a total dick
no excuse for that behavior
Oh, of course, yes. You can accuse people of all sorts of character flaws and actions on the basis of no evidence at all other than a made-up sequence of events that differs from every single media report (as far as I've seen, anyway) and it's fine because it's the internet. I forgot that. God bless the internet!
I've no idea who James Martin is? So give the fiver back.
A few Key board warriors disect the ramblings of an irate woman who is accompanying her Other Half on a commute throgh rush hour traffic, they pick out partial key words to justify the actions of a complete cock, Now i'm presuming here that the car had L plates on? If that is the case then the cyclist should do what other road users do and give caution? Yes or No?
If it hasn't got L Plates on he should then still continue to proceed with caution, and yes you are all right i wasnt there so i dont know the ins and outs of a ducks arse but then again neither were you.
A bit like crossing a Zebra crossing in London. You go to cross and half the time the cars dont even stop. IF they do i'll guarentee that a Cyclist does not. IF you are crossing a road and see a learner driver approaching i'm sure some on here think, Hello, new driver not confident i'd best make sure he can stop!
Judging from some of the responses it would be perfectly acceptable to then set about the car kicking the quarter panels in if it doesn't. Thumping the roof and even stoving in the windows.
It's hilarious how you would jump to a fellow Cyclists aid to defend him, i wonder if you would feel so proud of him IF it was your wife in the car and your child covered in Glass.
Sure the woman might have gobbed off at the Cyclist, i take it some of you have got a wife and kids? you have seen women in action when her family get threatened, lioness situation in a pride.
For me the woman comes out of this with the most rationale by what appears to be a calm response to the glass situation, Yes he just slept through it and some glass fell out of his car seat, NOT catch him KILL Him, lock him up or Kick his Spokes in. previous threads on here though prove that i have NO common sense at all, so i dont see why this one should be any different.
[quote=squoglybob ]Now i'm presuming here that the car had L plates on? If that is the case then the cyclist should do what other road users do and give caution?
If the first interaction the cyclist had was the learner driver cutting him up, then he won't have seen the L plates first in order to realise that sort of thing is acceptable because it's a learner driver.
Judging from some of the responses it would be perfectly acceptable to then set about the car kicking the quarter panels in if it doesn't. Thumping the roof and even stoving in the windows.
Now this is where you have a complete fail - IIRC it's also where you went wrong before. Because I only see one poster getting anywhere close to that, and he doesn't appear to be condoning smashing the window. You seem to have a problem working out that it's possible to have the opinion that the car driver probably did something badly wrong first without agreeing with the idea of smashing up cars.
Sure the woman might have gobbed off at the Cyclist, i take it some of you have got a wife and kids? you have seen women in action when her family get threatened, lioness situation in a pride.
Yep, I've experienced women gobbing off and being completely wrong. Do you think the cyclist was threatening her family when her family is safely ensconced within a metal box? Are you excusing [b]her[/b]?
The thing is, it usually is the driver's fault when cyclists (and pedestrians) get killed.
There you go, "Its usually the drivers fault" How can it be the drivers fault that a Cyclist smashed her car window? did she put her head out of the car and ask him to do it? i mean i wasn't there so i dont actually know. i am taking the side of the motorist because i thought about what if" what if it was my wife, my son in the car, what if i'd been driving? what if id had to swerve to avoid a collision with another road user and inadvertantly veered into a supreme being on a bike that the world owes a living to.
The roads are not there for Cyclists alone, they are there for all to use, And no i dont think the Cyclist was being threateneing at all by banging on the car roof, i dont think it was threatening at all smashing the car window with a D Lock, you obviously dont so neither do i.
squoglybob - Member - Block User
There you go, "Its usually the drivers fault" How can it be the drivers fault that a Cyclist smashed her car window?
That's not what he said.
Are you sure ?
read the bottom line again
I'm sure. I've read the bottom line several times and it still says the same thing every time. How about I quote this bit from your first post in case that helps at all:
[quote=squoglybob ]no doubt there will be at least 2 deaths next week as cyclists and motorists battle it out, no doubt it will be the motorists fault.
It always is.
Yes, it almost always is.
Sounds to me like the driver was incompetent/dangerous and the passenger was a ****. Despite only hearing her side of things.
what if id had to swerve to avoid a collision with another road user and inadvertantly veered into a supreme being on a bike that the world owes a living to.
It'd basically prove that it's always the motorists fault...
Tongue in cheek,
In relation to the NO LIGHTS ON A BIKE WHEN IT GETS DARK AN HOUR EARLIER NEXT WEEK, which was in relation to me driving in to work on Tuesday, after seeing several Cyclists without them on, which is in relation to turning up at the scene of an accident where a woman is killed cycling up the inside of a HGV in camden last year, which is in relation to a Cyclist being crushed under a bus on Oxford street cycling up the inside with no lights on,
its a well known fact that accidents happen this next week more than any other time in the year, i mean does anyone on here work in the motor trade fixing cars that have had a bump.
Its the same with motorists, forgetting to put lights on, driving too fast in the wet, you wont agree but its the same with Cyclists, i went in to the office this week and one of the girls who starts at 6 still has NO lights on her bike, if she gets knocked off i take it that its the motorists fault.
Oh, of course, yes. You can accuse people of all sorts of character flaws and actions on the basis of no evidence at all other than a made-up sequence of events that differs from every single media report (as far as I've seen, anyway) and it's fine because it's the internet. I forgot that. God bless the internet!
Bez, I read all your articles and have a huge amount of respect for you. I don't mind that you disagree with me, but I think this ^ is all a bit beneath you to be honest.
I was blowing off steam, offering an [admittedly robust] opinion based on the info in the link. The internet is full of opinions. Tears in the rain, my friend, tears in the rain.
I apologise if I've offended you.
[quote=squoglybob ]i went in to the office this week and one of the girls who starts at 6 still has NO lights on her bike, if she gets knocked off i take it that its the motorists fault.
The chances are it would be, yes.
Aye, storm in a teacup, which was partly why the response was a flounce rather than a coherent argument 😉 It's just that it seemed anything but "offering an opinion based on the info in the link": your sequence of events was in direct conflict with the info in the link. (And I know reporting is often way off the mark, but still…)
Bez - I think some of us were applying the filter of our experiences on the road and "what motorists say"* along with a dose of reporting inaccuracy and deciding what the most likely scenario was based on all the available evidence. For me at least that isn't exactly how the woman is reported as describing it, though that's just my opinion.
* has anybody done that video?
What Aracer said ^ [more articulately that I could]
Yeah, I follow that. It's the assumption that what happened here is the same as what you've experienced and seen many times before. But that doesn't mean it happened here, and (thus far) there's a total lack of information to say that it is what happened here. I've reasonable suspicion that the other side of the story may turn out to be different, but to take that report (or any of the others which give the same details) and state "driver squeezes cyclist" and that "she's a typical clueless, selfish ****" seems… a bit of a reach?
Fundamentally, there are nutjobs around and some of them are on bikes. If we're talking about someone who takes a D-lock and smashes a car window in, my thought is that we're above averagely leaning towards nutjob territory. Given how aggressively I've seen some people ride I don't see any reason to assume the story must be completely false.
But, like we all agree, we have one side of the story. Let's not jump to conclusions. (If we even still give a flip by now.)
Shall we have some gin and call it quits? 😉
Can I have my gin in a glass rather than the other way round?
[img] 
[/img]
iz disappoint
Yeah, I follow that. It's the assumption that what happened here is the same as what you've experienced and seen many times before. But that doesn't mean it happened here, and (thus far) there's a total lack of information to say that it is what happened here. I've reasonable suspicion that the other side of the story may turn out to be different, but to take that report (or any of the others which give the same details) and state "driver squeezes cyclist" and that "she's a typical clueless, selfish ****" seems… a bit of a reach?Fundamentally, there are nutjobs around and some of them are on bikes. If we're talking about someone who takes a D-lock and smashes a car window in, my thought is that we're above averagely leaning towards nutjob territory. Given how aggressively I've seen some people ride I don't see any reason to assume the story must be completely false.
But, like we all agree, we have one side of the story. Let's not jump to conclusions. (If we even still give a flip by now.)
Shall we have some gin and call it quits?
One of the most rational pieces on one of these topics. Bravo.
I'll take mine shaken, stirred and smashed over a child's face with a d-lock
Heh. Aracer beat me to that joke.
Evening. Oh bbc I wonder how many road rages, dealths etc etc there are a day? Stop the selective one sided redtop jounalism. Wheres the quality?