Forum menu
Some people are idiots, they deserved each other and no one got hurt by the looks of things.
The cyclist was an idiot and probably deserved it. Cannot stand sanctimonious cyclists like that. I'll bet he'd been mouthing off to other motorists that morning before this incident at any of the most minuscule real and perceived motorists infractions.
[quote=damo2576 ]Probably most significantly in this case it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them.
Except he didn't actually do that did he?
I'm not even sure you'll find a car in the ASL to be a criminal offence.
You should have tried googling for that one whilst you were at it - same offence as the one cyclists are normally accused of.
Even without intent still an offence.
[quote=damo2576 ]Even without intent still an offence.
Actually no it isn't. Back to google.
Cyclist had a panier rack!
I'd have punched him just for that!
Cyclist had a panier rack!I'd have punched him just for that!
And a rucksack!
it is an offence but the rule of sticks and stones would seem to apply here- that works in courts right 😉
Hurling abuse is generally not as bad as hitting someone
That said the cyclist is over reacting but if he has been run over you can see why..
There must have been a bit of conflict before that point.
I would continue to pass the aggressive cars at the lights (of which there are plenty on that stretch of road) and give them a cheeky thumbs up on the way past.
No helmet
Presumably we should just get rid of ASL boxes as you see no point to them?
No, they can be very useful - however in this instance although it was perfectly [b]legal[/b] for the cyclist to position himself there it was utterly pointless. All it did was box in a driver who up until then could have got away cleanly. A driver who is out of the way (and in front) is one who cannot knock you over or get pissed off at you.
Of course the driver should have just accepted it as one of those things that happens when you're driving in London. Of course he should have shown patience and tolerance.
But equally, the cyclist should have shown some courtesy too - you don't box someone in just cos it's legal for you to do so. He gained nothing from being there.
If it was heavy traffic and the car was jammed in then yes, go for it but blocking a clear getaway just cos you can is basic lack of courtesy.
This is worth a read:
http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-asls/
There's another blog post which I'm still trying to find about why using ASLs isn't always a good idea.
**** me there are some proper bell ends in here tonight.
THE POINT OF THE ASL IS TO LET THE CYCLISTS GET AWAY FIRST. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever is responsible for the road layout in that area.
And yes, it is an offence to cross the rear line, punishable with a £60 fine and 3 points.
the ASLs are there to protect cyclists from having to queue up the inside of cars
in case some people hadnt noticed theres been a spate of high profile cyclist deaths in london and being on the inside of cars at traffic lights is as dangerous as it gets. And their use has been encouraged and reinforced lately by the mayor and police at major junctions
the car driver was an obvious dick, aggressively entering the ASL is the work of a bad driver, simples. its also 3 points and a fine iirc
ultimately pointless in central london where its only a few hundred metres to the next set of lights and queue of traffic, cycling is the quickest way around town, and thats the cause of a lot of drivers frustration and envy directed at cyclists
however the cyclist didnt need to chase after him and start shouting, a simple one handed gesture wouldve been my response, either the classic w@nk3r or little finger tiny penis one seems to upset the most, maybe go retro and try dickhead? ;-
as for the thug who got out and attacked the cyclist, hes just a scumbag, and I hope he sees a courtroom soon
Here we go, found the other blog post:
http://www.magnatom.net/2012/01/advanced-stop-lines-spawn-of-satan.html
Specifically, this flow chart:
[img] 
[/img]
you don't box someone in just cos it's legal for you to do so. He gained nothing from being there.
they are not boxing anyone in there are placing their cycle where it can legally be placed. You may as well argue the car is boxing in the cycles as it has also stopped their progress - though of course they then broke the law to do this when the RLJ ed
The overwhelming feeling I get when these videos pop up is that I'm glad I don't live in London or anywhere that some of you lot drive.
The overwhelming feeling I get when these videos pop up is that
there is usually going to be at least two dickheads involved
Flow chart needs a supplementary graph.
I see shit like this all the time (apart from the fisticuffs). Par for the course.
Makes a nice change to the overly-PC, overly political, overly polite bollocks that occupy the office environment I work in.
[quote=crazy-legs ]Here we go, found the other blog post:
Interesting to see that's by somebody most of the pro car anti cyclist mob on here undoubtedly dislike! To be honest I largely agree with him, but still don't see that the cyclist actually did anything wrong before the driver did.
Driver was in a posh Audi, he was bound to be a prick.
They are best avoided IMO.
ton speaks sense, and as people have said, take the audi and the bike out the equation and its like being in a pub.
someone pushes into someoens space, that person gets upset and argues, it gets left but one person wont let it go and has to get one last insult in, then gets dropped.
doesnt matter if they are on a bike or in a car, just a pair of dickheads
Ton- your wrong; even if I'm on my own in an ASL I will be in the middle, that's the point of them to give cyclist an opportunity to being front of traffic.
**** me there are some proper bell ends in here tonight.THE POINT OF THE ASL IS TO LET THE CYCLISTS GET AWAY FIRST. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever is responsible for the road layout in that area.
And yes, it is an offence to cross the rear line, punishable with a £60 fine and 3 points.
+1
And thumping someone is much worse than swearing at someone.
I can't believe cyclists are supporting or justifying the driver. That said the rider needs to calm down. I ride Farringdon Road several times a week and its fine. Has some good Strava segments....
'kin hell. We have to read flow charts to understand cycling? 😉
Cyclist was a bit aggressive, and I agree, if you're gonna do that, you should probably be able to back it up. But to say he shouldn't be where he was ... that's what the ASL is for!! Dems da rules. You really can't win on a bike it seems. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Keep the flow charts coming. We'll get there eventually.
Driver was initially a bit of a dick but the cyclist needs anger management lessons. I'm not sure if getting out and lamping him was exactly a reasonable response but it was fairly predictable.
Chasing the driver down and shouting at him is bloody stupid.
Lord above, this place is ridiculous. I know which one of those morons I'd rather be locked up.... Its the one testing the 0-60 time of his Audi in central London and then getting his mates to punch people in the face for swearing at him.
But yeah, the cyclist deserved it.... 🙄
1. The cyclists used the ASL correctly - nothing at all wrong with their positioning, that's what it's for. This is exactly what you'd see in Denmark or the Netherlands where ASLs are common.
2. The car driver broke the law by entering the box whilst the light was on red. Fixed £100 fine.
3. The cyclist calmly attempted to inform the driver of his mistake...a little superior, and I wouldn't have done it, but hey ho.
4. The cyclist took umbrage at the drivers apparent unconcern and [i]slightly[/i] reckless driving and made a rather rash decision.
5. The cyclist then verbally abused the driver.
6. The rear seat passenger then assaults the cyclist.
The driver is due a fine, the cyclist is due a talking to, and passenger is due a caution (or worse if they have previous).
[quote=hh45]I can't believe cyclists are supporting or justifying the driver.
Not been here long?
Driver a nob. Cyclist a nob. Passenger is the end of a bell. Cyclist should have rammed bike and fallen in to side of Audi when passenger hit him. Scratched and dented doors and wing would be a couple of grand to repair and all passengers fault...
I think he's shouting "you nearly ran over my *ing foot" so the passenger punches him in the face and threatens - "I'll ing lay you out"
I commute by bike and car, First words with driver exceptable as driver was wrong to do what he did but chasing him down and confronting a second time makes them both as bad as each other.
Both deserve a good talking to.
If i have not made it to a ASL box before the light hits read then I stay out of it it is a solid white line there for should not be crossed. But thats me looking at it from driving and a motorcycling point of view.
The cyclist was initially in the right.
Then became a complete arse when he swore.
He swore at the wrong guy, got a slap. Did he deserve it? Probably not but maybe he'll learn should it happen again.
I have no sympathy.
Some of you people are nuts. The cyclists weren't going to slow the car- you can tell, because if it had been a "nice clear road" they wouldn't have caught up with him so easily at the next set of traffic lights. So the car would have lost nothing by staying where he was [i]legally required to stay.[/i]
Yes, his reaction was OTT but that doesn't earn a punch! Apparently it's worse to call a *ing * a *ing * than it is to be a *ing *.
I like waiting at lights. Gives me a chance to catch my breath. On the whole, I side with the mouthy cyclist this time - can't be arsed typing my feelings out so HoratioHufnagel +1.
Cyclist initially did nothing wrong but was extremely aggressive after catching up - leaning right in and angrily shouting like that. I'd have felt pretty threatened - wouldn't have got out and lamped him though.
I just wonder how people manage to get through the day when they get into a furious rage so easily. When I was commuting by bike I saw worse than that fairly regularly. Escalating the situation is never wise IMO.
the flow chart seems to suggest the cylist was in the right up until the bit when he chased down the audi and swore . really you would expect a bigger push to prosecute drivers who enter asl's as if complied with they certainly are a safty feature for cyclists . Most drivers in citys seem congenitaly incapable of stopping on stop lines we could probably pay off the national debt if they all got done for it.
was the car that jumped the red light and shot passed aggressive or threatening or just the cyclist swearing?
I dont disagree with what you say but you cannot overlook that the car driver did the same first - neither are acts I wish to defend nor overlook tbh but only one lot were illegal.
It could have ben avoided by either behaving differently.
[quote=Rscott ]First words with driver exceptable as driver was wrong to do what he did but chasing him down and confronting a second time makes them both as bad as each other.
Swearing at somebody (not illegal) is just as bad as punching somebody (illegal) and crossing white line into ASL box (illegal)?
I'm not suggesting the cyclist was right to chase down the car and swear at them (for a start he clearly didn't need to try that hard to catch the car at the next set of lights), but his actions don't excuse anything any of the occupants of the car did, which were all totally out of proportion.
Edit: read a bit more now
Age sex location box?
He says the car ran over his foot. Not sure I'd be able to cycle that fast if my foot had just been run over. But if he was telling the truth, wouldn't you swear at the person who'd done it? I'm sure I would.
Reverse the situation. Cyclist does something that the driver thinks is out of order. 1st he reverses up and tells him. Then when the cyclist zooms off, driver follows him, gets up close to him at the next lights and starts swearing his head off and calling names. Cyclist punches him. Driver zooms off sheepishly. You'd all be hailing the cyclist a hero for standing up to the aggressive nasty Audi-driving bully. Think about it! 😀
aracer - MemberSwearing at somebody (not illegal)
[...]
Do you disagree with damo2576's point about Public Order offences?
Threatening, abusive or insulting language in a public place falls under the Public Order Act. It an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress.