Driver Cyclist arguement with a brilliant ending NSFW or kids

tomasrojo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Jesus Christ, play me the world's smallest violin.

I don't think it's as bad here as in the UK, but it's another factor holding back uptake of cycling, which would be a net societal gain. It's not self-pity (or not primarily).

T-K-O

RainyDay wrote: »

'Plenty of room' eh?



Yes, we do - though this somewhat suggests that the risk involved on both sides are equivalent. The risk involved with driving a 1-2 ton car at 80-120kmph are somewhat different to the risk involved with cycling a 10-20kg bike at 10-20kmph. This is reflected in the road safety stats that show that cyclists kill zero people each year while motorists kill about 200 people each year.



There are hundreds, if not thousands of cyclists who post regular videos of 'this kind of nonsense' (e.g. threats to their safety) on YouTube.


And there would be zero response from the police.



Have a look at the photo. There would have been no incident 'brought about or initiated' if the driver had given him a decent 1.5m passing space, or held back until such a space was available.


Well that makes you an undoubted expert so...




Paramedics really aren't experts in deciding how helmets save (or fail to save) lives.

Then take this hard evidence to the police, following the guy was a dumb move. The cyclist comes across like right muppet. As does the driver BTW but if he's not followed we don't get the pleasure of getting to know him, it's that simple.

It won't belong until some similar fool with a go pro ends up on the front page and for what.

A wonderful example.of the modern man

Ranchu

If you spend your days filming every cycle you do, you should probably do something else.

RainyDay

johnny osbourne wrote: »

i thought the pursuit was very dramatic, he's fast on the bike

Just in case my irony meter is mis-reading, you do realise that sections of the video were speeded up.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Jesus Christ, play me the world's smallest violin.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think it's as bad here as in the UK, but it's another factor holding back uptake of cycling, which would be a net societal gain. It's not self-pity (or not primarily).

A back-of-the-envelope calculation for me suggests that proportionally out death toll on the roads is a little bit worse than the UK. It is certainly a factor that is holding back cycling.

I'm not so sure that it's a great idea to highlight this, as there is a significant contingent of people who appear to be absolutely determined to spend as much time as possible in larger and larger traffic jams watching the rear end of the car in front, and not do anything that could possibly ease traffic flow and make their journey faster.

T-K-O wrote: »

Then take this hard evidence to the police, following the guy was a dumb move.

As explained at least three times on the thread, the police would do absolutely nothing about this evidence. Several UK police forces have an explicit policy that says 'unless someone gets hurt, don't bother reporting traffic stuff to us'. Others operate this policy implicitly.

RainyDay

Ranchu wrote: »

If you spend your days filming every cycle you do, you should probably do something else.

There are those who might say if you spend your days commenting on discussions about cycling videos, you should probably do something else. It's a judgement call really.

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

A back-of-the-envelope calculation for me suggests that proportionally out death toll on the roads is a little bit worse than the UK. It is certainly a factor that is holding back cycling.

Our KSI per billion km is lower for bike journeys, last data I saw (potentially not different if confidence intervals included?), but I was really talking about "hating on" cyclists by media and others.

Ranchu

RainyDay wrote: »

There are those who might say if you spend your days commenting on discussions about cycling videos, you should probably do something else. It's a judgement call really.

If you spend your days commenting on cycling videos you should definitely do something else. It's fanatical behaviour that can't be good for your mental health.

EagererBeaver

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think it's as bad here as in the UK, but it's another factor holding back uptake of cycling, which would be a net societal gain. It's not self-pity (or not primarily).

I was referring to the pathetic comment about how it's OK to hate cyclists who suffer like blacks, Jews, gays, dogs, Irish etc, not the lamentable number of deaths on our roads.

tomasrojo

I wasn't talking about the lamentable number of road deaths, actually. I was talking about "hating on" people who travel by bike. It's very unhelpful. While comparing it to racism is hyperbole, it's still a significant problem, and it comes from a similar place of in-group/out-group tension.

(Our road deaths should be lower, but they actually are ok by European standards. The hidden problem is we have achieved it to a large extent by creating an environment in which the vulnerable have virtually no independent travel.)

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

There are those who might say if you spend your days commenting on discussions about cycling videos, you should probably do something else. It's a judgement call really.

Look as you said lets deal with reality.
If he had not followed the motorist and had presented the video to the police they would not have taken action because there is at least a foot between the car and cyclist.
He followed the motorist and everything that happened after that was instigated by the cyclist.
2 headcases, real big city thinking mindsets, this is my space and **** anyone who enters it.

Anyone who agrees with either party, need to reevaluate their life values.

T-K-O

RainyDay wrote: »

Just in case my irony meter is mis-reading, you do realise that sections of the video were speeded up.




A back-of-the-envelope calculation for me suggests that proportionally out death toll on the roads is a little bit worse than the UK. It is certainly a factor that is holding back cycling.

I'm not so sure that it's a great idea to highlight this, as there is a significant contingent of people who appear to be absolutely determined to spend as much time as possible in larger and larger traffic jams watching the rear end of the car in front, and not do anything that could possibly ease traffic flow and make their journey faster.


As explained at least three times on the thread, the police would do absolutely nothing about this evidence. Several UK police forces have an explicit policy that says 'unless someone gets hurt, don't bother reporting traffic stuff to us'. Others operate this policy implicitly.

Exactly there was no crime here just a idiot on a bike. Justify it all you want but it's only a matter of time before someone ends up.seriously hurt or worse

RainyDay

Nekarsulm wrote: »

The usual figure bandied about, is 2000 dollars for every million views.

All depends on who clicks the ads, but your estimate seems very, very high to me.

Ranchu wrote: »

If you spend your days commenting on cycling videos you should definitely do something else. It's fanatical behaviour that can't be good for your mental health.

And commenting on discussions about cycling videos is completely different how?

tomasrojo wrote: »

(Our road deaths should be lower, but they actually are ok by European standards. The hidden problem is we have achieved it to a large extent by creating an environment in which the vulnerable have virtually no independent travel.)

Sadly true.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

I was referring to the pathetic comment about how it's OK to hate cyclists who suffer like blacks, Jews, gays, dogs, Irish etc, not the lamentable number of deaths on our roads.

Have a look at any online discussion about cycling, and you see exhortations to violence (including one on this thread that has been dealt with by mods). Why do some people pick out wearing of lycra as something to hate? Because it is different - it is something they don't do themselves, so they decide that it's OK to hate people based on what they wear, just like hating people for the colour of their skin or the size of their nose.

el tel

I think if the fella in the car had fallen with a limb or his head going down an open drain cover during the tumble it would have been much more entertaining.

EagererBeaver

Again, play me your violin.

tomasrojo

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Again, play me your violin.

Well, there's no comeback to arguments based on members of the chordophone family.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, there's no comeback to arguments based on members of the chordophone family.

Bro, if you continue to harp on I may just call you a lyre.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Look as you said lets deal with reality.
If he had not followed the motorist and had presented the video to the police they would not have taken action because there is at least a foot between the car and cyclist.

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?

QuinDixie wrote: »

He followed the motorist and everything that happened after that was instigated by the cyclist.

Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?

QuinDixie wrote: »

2 headcases, real big city thinking mindsets, this is my space and **** anyone who enters it.

I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.

QuinDixie wrote: »

Anyone who agrees with either party, need to reevaluate their life values.

Do we really need the amateur psychology?

T-K-O wrote: »

Exactly there was no crime here just a idiot on a bike. Justify it all you want but it's only a matter of time before someone ends up.seriously hurt or worse

You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Again, play me your violin.

Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

Wright

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Jesus Christ, play me the world's smallest violin.

Sorry what? I would say people killed is actually rather tragic?

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?



Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?


I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.


Do we really need the amateur psychology?


You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.




Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

I heard Adolf and Josef were avid cyclists.
Safe passing space, there is motorists and cyclists who do not understand those words.
Every road user needs to be chilled out, no rushing allowed. Remain calm and enjoy your drive/cycle/run/walk.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

Safe passing space, there is motorists and cyclists who do not understand those words.

Indeed, there was one on this thread earlier who thought that 'at least a foot' was a reasonable passing space.

QuinDixie

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, there was one on this thread earlier who thought that 'at least a foot' was a reasonable passing space.

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

irelandrover

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

Because if you hit a pothole you can easily swerve 30.48cm when youre on a bike. Or a gust of wind can easily sway you by 30.48cm.

RainyDay

QuinDixie wrote: »

A foot is 12 inches. 12 inches is 30.48 cm. How is that unreasonable on a narrow road. Its about perspective and having some.
Its about looking outwards and not constantly looking inwards.

What has the 'narrow road' got to do with it? If there isn't room to overtake safely, you wait until there is room. You don't put another road user's life at risk so you can rush to the next set of lights/queue of cars a little quicker.

UK Highway Code says 3 feet. RSA says 1.5m.

But you have 'perspective' that allows you to squeeze a cyclist with no room for maneuver if something unexpected happens?

pablo128

RainyDay wrote: »

What has the 'narrow road' got to do with it? If there isn't room to overtake safely, you wait until there is room. You don't put another road user's life at risk so you can rush to the next set of lights/queue of cars a little quicker.

UK Highway Code says 3 feet. RSA says 1.5m.

But you have 'perspective' that allows you to squeeze a cyclist with no room for maneuver if something unexpected happens?

Do you know what would happen if a truck tyre blew out and you were standing beside it? You would die. I see cyclists all the time passing stationary trucks on the inside at traffic lights. That risk doesn't seem to bother them.

T-K-O

RainyDay wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the UK Highway Code sets out three feet as a safe passing distance, so 'at least a foot' is somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the safe passing space set out in that jurisdiction. The Highway Code tells drivers to treat cyclists like a small car when overtaking. Did the driver do this?



Yes indeed, and everything that happened in Europe in the late 1930s AFTER the Germans invaded Poland was instigated by the allies - so WW2 is down to the Allies, based on your logic, right?


I've no idea what the driver was thinking. Probably not much thinking at all.

The cyclist's mindset was more like 'this is my life and *** anyone who threatens it'.


Do we really need the amateur psychology?


You're right, it is only a matter of time before a driver failing to leave enough passing space seriously hurts a cyclist or worse. Hopefully the viral video will highlight the importance of safe passing space.




Classy. HOpe you enjoy traffic jams, as your attitude is contributing to creating bigger and bigger ones.

And hopefully, when one of your family is subject to bullying and hatred, you'll look back and see how you contributed to that development.

Sure..

That vdeo doesn't do anything for cyclists.

As stated previously my girlfriend cycles and it's a constant worry, this guy and this video doesn't help matters

desertcircus

pablo128 wrote: »

Do you know what would happen if a truck tyre blew out and you were standing beside it? You would die. I see cyclists all the time passing stationary trucks on the inside at traffic lights. That risk doesn't seem to bother them.

Because the risk of a left-hand truck tyre blowing out while the truck is stationary in traffic and a cyclist is filtering past at exactly the wrong moment is basically zero.

Eric Cartman

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Cyclist comes across as a complete wanker too to be honest.

+1 this video just reminds me of yer man Liam on youtube who cycles round in the middle of the road looking for trouble and videos himself giving out to drivers for him trying to injure himself.

Its people like this that cause the negativity towards cyclists.

pablo128

desertcircus wrote: »

Because the risk of a left-hand truck tyre blowing out while the truck is stationary in traffic and a cyclist is filtering past at exactly the wrong moment is basically zero.

As is the chance of a cyclist swerving a foot either side of him as a car is passing.

desertcircus

pablo128 wrote: »

As is the chance of a cyclist swerving a foot either side of him as a car is passing.

Nope, not true. Cyclists have been killed in exactly this way.

colossus-x

I think any cyclist can take as much video as they bloody well please. A video is just a recording of some event that actually happened. CCTV does the same thing. Taking video does not cause any event to happen. However I don't' think it's on for the cyclist to chase down the driver in that fashion. The demeanor of the driver is irrelevant. If he broke a law the cyclist should report it to the police, it's not up to the cyclists to enforce the law.

Btw, the front view of the camera doesn't look that close to me. Cars pass by me that close all the time on the country roads here although it's would be impossible to measure just by looking at that video.