Forum menu
As you note he did what he is legally entitled to
Indeed, but that doesn't make it [b]right[/b]. Much like the fact that the speed limit on a country lane may well be 60mph, but it doesn't mean it would be [b]right[/b] to go at 60mph, even if you were legally entitled to.
If they create a defined box at the head of the lights, the clear intent is that cyclists use all of it when necessary. Otherwise it would just be a stop line with a bike lane ahead of it.
Part of the idea is to get a pack of cyclists away well in front of potential left-hooking motorists as often as possible as opposed to creating a lengthy single-file line of cyclists heading away, meaning that left-turning traffic then has to stop and wait for the whole line to pass before making the manoeuvre.
Helps everyone, even Audi drivers.
[quote=CaptainFlashheart ]
As you note he did what he is legally entitled to
Indeed, but that doesn't make it right. Much like the fact that the speed limit on a country lane may well be 60mph, but it doesn't mean it would be right to go at 60mph, even if you were legally entitled to.
Why do [b]you[/b] think the ASL is the full width of the lane?
EVERY asl in London is full of cyclists, often 5 or 6 deep across the wdith of the road, they out-number cars by at least 5 to 1, often more. Cycling has taken over in central London. Public transport is full and driving in central London costs 8 quid in congestion charges and around 40 quid to park. No other option!
The reason you need to move to the right is to let other poeple in so they don't set off amongst the traffic. Notice all the tipper lorries on the other side of the road? Theres loads of building work there at the moment. Even "taking the lane" doesn't guarantee safety since
Theres no way the driver or passenger are local to London, as its utterly pointless getting annoyed by cyclists in front of you whilst driving. He'd be in punch ups every day.
driving is in Asia
for some perspective
Theres no way the cyclist is local to London, as its utterly pointless getting annoyed by drivers doing stupid things. He'd be in punch ups every day.
Much like the fact that the speed limit on a country lane may well be 60mph, but it doesn't mean it would be right to go at 60mph, even if you were legally entitled to.
Has a cyclist ever been prosecuted for an offence for going into an ASL at a red light wherever they put their bike?
Driver have for the scenario you describe as yes that may still be a driving offence
Arguments (I found) in London tended to be handbag-affairs. I had a full blown argument with a bloke who threw his whole bodyweight into a packed tube carriage just as the doors were shutting. He landed on two ladies.
Que me objecting/kicking off and him kicking off. He then said 'have you been eating garlic' Yes, quite abit last night actually. Que end of argument with an apology.
Up north (as on the roads) it'd more likely be a fight from pretty much straight away?
The cyclist got owned and looked a bit silly but saying he deserved it is a bit odd, if the cyclist was a bit hardcore himself are you saying he had the right to drag the driver into the street and beat him up for the aggressive behaviour that started the incident??? Be reasonable people.
Riding in Cities is a fantastic buzz 😀
Theres no way the driver or passenger are local to London, as its utterly pointless getting annoyed by cyclists in front of you whilst driving. He'd be in punch ups every day.
The car was registered in Northants, so an outsider.
The video has also had 32,000 hits, a lot more than the cyclist had,shouldnt be long before the hiter is identified now.
Theres no way the cyclist is local to London, as its utterly pointless getting annoyed by drivers doing stupid things. He'd be in punch ups every day.
Except he didn't punch anyone. People shout at each other a fair bit on Londons roads, punch ups are unusual.
I'm really shocked by this, I always find Audi drivers the most courteous and polite users of the highways, must be an isolated incident.
If you go looking for trouble you'll usually get it, not sure it deserved a slap though.
[quote=grum]If someone came up to you on the street angrily shouting right in your face - what would your response be? I don't think I'd hit them but I couldn't rule it out.
I am quite sure I wouldn't punch them. Haven't hit anybody since I was ~16 (apart from maybe in self defence, but even in the incidents I can recall where I've been attacked I don't think I've thrown a punch). I actually find it a bit scary the number of people who it seems wouldn't rule out using their fists in such a situation.
[quote=rewski ]I'm really shocked by this, I always find Audi drivers the most courteous and polite users of the highways, must be an isolated incident.
Ah, but it was the passenger who used his fists - I presume he owns a BMW.
I actually find it a bit scary the number of people who it seems wouldn't rule out using their fists in such a situation.
And that's why I'd say being right isn't always something to shout about )
shouldnt be long before the hiter is identified now.
Isn't that irrelevant unless someone (ie the cyclist) registers a complaint?
(apart from maybe in self defence, but even in the incidents I can recall where I've been attacked I don't think I've thrown a punch). I actually find it a bit scary the number of people who it seems wouldn't rule out using their fists in such a situation.
If that happened in the street I think you could easily argue punching him was self-defence. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, or that I would do it, but I couldn't rule it out if I felt threatened. Getting out of the car to do it makes it a bit different.
I find it a bit worrying how many people are willing to excuse aggressive behaviour just because it's a cyclist that's doing it.
While I'm broadly sympathetic to those castigating any cyclist for being overly aggressive, swearing into people's windows and looking for confrontations, I'm really bamboozled by the assertion on this thread that cyclists should be crammed to the left in the ASL / ASZ / bike box.
The whole point is that they are full width, other places (I can think of at least one in Leeds) you could, if that was the intention, extend the bike lane at the same width, but stopping further forward, but that's not what the ASL does, is it? It goes full width so you can safely position yourself in front of traffic, visible to drivers, and less vulnerable to "left hooks". Isn't saying the cyclists should stay to the left of it not much different to the Clarksons of this world thinking that cyclists should ride in the gutter to stay "out of the way" of cars? What am I missing here?
On a related note, does anyone know if any driver, anywhere, ever, has actually been ticketed for an ASL infringement?
Can't be bothered to read all the posts but All this video does is confirm the fact that there are ****s driving cars and ****s riding bikes and people feel the need to argue otherwise. Shame really we could be discussing wheel sizes!?
[quote=njee20 ]shouldnt be long before the hiter is identified now.
Isn't that irrelevant unless someone (ie the cyclist) registers a complaint?
Surely entering the ASL is an offence regardless? (though I'm assuming the police will take no action in any case).
On a related note, does anyone know if any driver, anywhere, ever, has actually been ticketed for an ASL infringement?
I've seen a few FPNs being handed out in recent weeks, so yes. There's been a big push by the Police to both educate and, where necessary, prosecute this for all road users. Which is a good thing, IMHO. FWIW, I've yet to see a cyclist getting a FPN, just a polite telling off.
[quote=grum ]If that happened in the street I think you could easily argue punching him was self-defence.
Really? Self-defence against being shouted at? It's not as if the cyclist threatens to use violence himself.
I find it a bit worrying how many people are willing to excuse aggressive behaviour just because it's a cyclist that's doing it.
It's because his actions are justifiable (see defence for public order offence) as he's complaining about the driver's actions which came close to injuring him (to be honest that bit of driving is also an offence). Nothing to do with what mode of transport he's using. It actually seems that some people on here criticise people more because they're cyclists.
this place depresses me, I'm going back to the ghost ship cannibal rats thread
grum » If that happened in the street I think you could easily argue punching him was self-defence.Really? Self-defence against being shouted at? It's not as if the cyclist threatens to use violence himself.
Agree with aracer - plus the passenger is a) in a car and b) not the recipient of the vitriol from the cyclist. No way in a million years is that self defence!
To ensure a driver hears you when locked into his car, you need to shout, to attract his attention, thats why cars have horns to attract attention, the driver was an idiot, who obviously failed the safe driving course,and anger management course, and need to be prosecuted for assault, driving into an ASL box, and using threateneing behaviour.
But as per usual he will have some daft excuse,like late for work, the cyclist was threatening him so he defended himself and many more pathetic excuses for poor driving.
Wouldn't all this have been avoided if they had proper phased lights with a 10 second head start for cyclists ?
[quote=MidlandTrailquestsGraham ]Wouldn't all this have been avoided if [s]they had proper phased lights with a 10 second head start for cyclists ?[/s]the driver had abided by the law?
I haven't read many of the responses here, due to the high amount of arseholes on the forum.
After watching the video, it is clear that the man who got out of the car committed an act of force against the cyclist. This is not acceptable.
The cyclist chose to chase down the car and swear and shout at the driver. This is also not acceptable.
The whole situation cou7ld have been avoided if the cyclist had just ignored the car. He chose to remonstrate the driver, then chose to chase after him and become aggressive.
They are as bad as each other, but most conflict can be avoided.
You reckon that driver wouldn't have gone on the cyclists' green, MTG?
[quote=handyandy ]I haven't read many of the responses here
...
They are as bad as each other
Oh gosh, not another one. Try reading some of mine which explains why that isn't so.
I will treat drivers and cyclist differently here, as it seems a common theme to suggest that cyclists who run red lights are just as bad as drivers who do (or commit numerous other traffic offences). For those thinking such a thing, check how many drivers have been killed by cyclists in the last year.
The whole situation cou7ld have been avoided if the [s]cyclist had just ignored the [/s]car hadn't entered the ASL box.
Really? Self-defence against being shouted at? It's not as if the cyclist threatens to use violence himself.
As above, verbally abusing someone can be a crime with considerable penalties. It's certainly an arguable point according to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/16/verbal-abuse-law
It's because his actions are justifiable (see defence for public order offence) as he's complaining about the driver's actions which came close to injuring him
Chasing him down then shouting with his face right up to the window? Hmmm....
Agree with aracer - plus the passenger is a) in a car and b) not the recipient of the vitriol from the cyclist. No way in a million years is that self defence!
I see you've missed/decided to ignore the bit where I said 'if that happened in the street', and that getting out of the car to do it makes it different.
[quote=grum ]As above, verbally abusing someone can be a crime with considerable penalties. It's certainly an arguable point according to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jun/16/verbal-abuse-law
I already covered that under the statutory defences for the public order offence (which that article doesn't mention - not unreasonably as it appears to be discussing a different situation in which the statutory defence wouldn't apply). Though interestingly the article does make it clear that your "self defence" of any sort certainly wouldn't apply, so it seems kind of strange to link it when arguing against my suggestion that punching somebody isn't appropriate self defence for being shouted at. I don't think there's any argument at all about that.
I haven't read many of the responses here, due to the high amount of arseholes on the forum.After watching the video, it is clear that the man who got out of the car committed an act of force against the cyclist. This is not acceptable.
The cyclist chose to chase down the car and swear and shout at the driver. This is also not acceptable.
The whole situation cou7ld have been avoided if the cyclist had just ignored the car. He chose to remonstrate the driver, then chose to chase after him and become aggressive.
They are as bad as each other, but most conflict can be avoided.
+1 the only thing I could to add to this is he could have reported it to police rather than going after the driver. IMHO you lose any moral high ground being confrontational
[url= http://gifsoup.com/view/834879/dog-chases-tail.html ]This thread now[/url]
I'm not condoning violence of any sort and this was an unfortunate act ... However if your prone to getting very shouty and sweary it's wise to have the ability to throw a haymaker whilst wearing cycling shoes !! 😉
Grum as others not you may expect that if you shout at someone - though of course you are ignoring the fact they started the aggression in the first place with the illegal act 0 that some of them will hit you but it is still an offence to hit them so it is better to focus on the illegal acts than blame the victim. I am not saying that if they altered their behaviour the end result would not have happened but it is a stretch to say they deserved it IMHO or that the getting out the car was "self defence" not least as they were not being shouted at and they were in a big box with a door that locked.
Its also fair to say that had the cyclist not done that they would not have got hit but they are still the victim of a crime and guilty of poor behaviour not illegal behaviour.
IMHO you lose any moral high ground being confrontational
like say entering a zone illegally and aggressively in a 2 ton box and then hitting someone who shouts at you? Neither is great but it is obvious which is worse and illegal.
I don't get why [s]drivers[/s] road users get all arsey when you call them out on stuff they have very obviously done wrong. Why is the initial response always aggro?
Driver last night pulled out on me, I gave his rear view mirror the hard stare but did nowt - it's a nice night I'm on my bike staying calm, noticed he was on phone, I am calm as a hindu cow, next junction he joins right turn only lane, I am not surprised to see him tear arse across the junction to jump the straight ahead queue, next junction I am next to his window (I'm going right he's going left) he is still on the phone so I motion to him to open his window and none swearingly (but possibly not politely) suggest he put his phone down and concentrate on driving, sure enough I get a load of abuse - not sure on what basis other than I called his driving into question.
And - for balance - the rider on camera on a recent thread who kicked off when he was called an idiot for RLJing.
There's only one driver I remember ever holding his hand up and saying "yeah my fault" when I've complained - normally after them scaring the shit out of me by pulling out or a close pass.
Have had better reactions from people who have actually hit me, I guess introspection is more [i]likely[/i] to kick in when you have actually harmed someone.
jameso - Member
In all this I think it's interesting how 'bad' from our POV a lot of driving is in Asia. No-one there seems to gives a toss, the traffic flows while people undertake, cut in, make squeezing, scary overtakes and tailgate all day. There's accidents and taxi rides there scare the crp out of me at times. But I've never seen any road rage. I'm not judging it aside from thinking it's risky, really just observing.All I can think of is the differences in culture, our sense of ROW, ownership, entitlement and self vs their sense of being just one of many, not wanting to stand out much or make a fuss, a more accepting go-with-flow nature, something like that. Generalising but there's some truth in it.I'm not sure but it's interesting.
Makes me wonder if we create many of the issues around us ourselves yet perceive them as the fault of others by our defensive, fault-seeking nature. Choose your attitude etc. Amateur psychology BS, sorry ) but it affects how I react to these situations.
Dissecting incidents or rights of way etc doesn't change how people are, bad driving is a knock-on effect of stressed lives, ignorance etc. It's a bigger issue than just the driving and the police are too underfunded to address it as mentioned above.
+1000 to all of that.
These topics gets dragged out into the circular debate on who is at fault who has broken what laws and how much more awesome some of us would have been in the same situation.
Perhaps we lose sight of the bigger question, how has our society gotten to the point where such levels of impotent rage are no longer unusual, the "Clarkson" thread yesterday sort of illustrated the same thing, there seem to be a lot of people on the roads (in/on all forms of transport) teetering on the brink of their [I]fight or flight[/i] response, certain the world, or at least some group or another, are out to **** them over...
The UK is becoming a bit of a psychologically mess TBH...
Thank god relatively few of us have Ready access to firearms eh?
Though interestingly the article does make it clear that your "self defence" of any sort certainly wouldn't apply, so it seems kind of strange to link it when arguing against my suggestion that punching somebody isn't appropriate self defence for being shouted at. I don't think there's any argument at all about that.
It says this though:
it is a defence to charges under sections 4A and 5, but not 4
Section 4A:
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour, in a public or private place, with intent to cause and thereby causing harassment, alarm or distress
I think chasing someone then aggressively leaning right into their window and shouting at them could easily fall under this. As I said (at least twice) though getting out of the car makes it a bit different, IMO
It also says this:
Under section 4 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 or of provoking an immediate violent response. The offence is also committed if the effect of the person's language is that someone else will think that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked.
it is a stretch to say they deserved it IMHO or that the getting out the car was "self defence" not least as they were not being shouted at and they were in a big box with a door that locked.
Are you referring to me? I already said (multiple times) that the guy getting out of the car doesn't really fit with any argument of self-defence.
I still think the cyclist technically committed an offence though (as did the driver and passenger).
IMHO you lose any moral high ground being confrontationallike say entering a zone illegally and aggressively in a 2 ton box and then hitting someone who shouts at you? Neither is great but it is obvious which is worse and illegal.
Both used intimidation. I'm not saying either are in the right.
The driver should get penalized for the motoring offense and assault. Both should go on separate anger management courses.
I think they should hug, kiss and say sorry to each other for acting like fools.
Maybe swap numbers and go for a drink later.
Perhaps we should send them on the same course on the same day 😉
Its not that unreasonable a point tbh
Good point from DONK as car drivers, no matter how poor their behaviour, always go ape shit if someone says anything to them.
I still think the cyclist technically committed an offence though
that is a possible the drivers and passengers actions are not in doubt though we are doing little beyond debating the cyclist behaviour again on here.
I think its time to all join hands for a round of kumbaya 🙂
do we get to block the road whilst doing this? 😉