Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 05:32PM

seamus wrote: »

"She could have avoided being raped if she had just worn a longer skirt, plain and simple". See where the fault in your ethics are here? You're assigning blame to someone who has done nothing wrong.
Instinctive is that video of the guy who lands a serious sucker punch when a buddy jumps out of a bin to try and scare him.

No I don't. It is completely non analogous to your rape scenario as the cyclist felt the need to show his displeasure to the driver. He went from letting him drive on to pro actively making sure the driver knew he was annoyed.

seamus wrote: »

Road rage is not "instinctive" by any measure. Reactionary and passionate, sure. It doesn't mitigate it in the slightest. If anything, it makes it worse because it shows that the aggressor is incapable of controlling himself in tense situations and so presents an ongoing danger to public safety inside and outside their vehicle.

Sure, that's all fine as it was more just a figure of speech. I don't think beeping a horn is instinctive either.

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 05:35PM

Knasher wrote: »

It isn't a difficult question, I'm just asking you for a gut reaction number so I can know how much blame you would assign where. Just a percentage. Obviously you don't think 50% because you have already indicated that you don't think they are equally to blame. I'm not going to ask you to justify your response, I just want to get a bearing on exactly what people have been arguing over for the last 5 pages.

If it's not a difficult question it's certainly a poorly phrased one.

I couldn't put a number on what exactly you're asking as I'm not looking at it in a context of blame, I'm looking at it could the situation have ended had either party not did anything and not had a mini cock sword fight.

seamus · 01-05-2013 05:39PM

Ush1 wrote: »

No I don't. It is completely non analogous to your rape scenario as the cyclist felt the need to show his displeasure to the driver. He went from letting him drive on to pro actively making sure the driver knew he was annoyed.

The beep was necessary to alert the driver to the danger. You disagree, but you're wrong.
In any case, being attacked is not a consequence of beeping. No road user should be required to avoid using their horn lest they be attacked for it.

JRant · 01-05-2013 05:52PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Where have I said that?

You've been banging on long and hard for most of this thread about how it the cyclist was responsible due to him beeping and gesturing.

Ush1 wrote: »

The cyclist could have avoided the situation, plain and simple.

There's so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin. All I will say though is this is just victim blaming and is quite frankly ridiculous.

Ush1 wrote: »

It's instinctive for some people I'm afraid, as the video demonstrated. As the stats and article I posted show, road rage is a very real thing and instinctive reactions or not(which I don't agree blowing a horn is) things can escalate.

It is not road rage, it's assault, however it is far less common than you are making out. For a good analysis of why this is so I'd recommend 'The science of Fear' by Daniel Gardner. He debunks the myths surrounding many common held beliefs, such as road rage being a common occurrences.

Knasher · 01-05-2013 06:08PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm looking at it could the situation have ended had either party not did anything and not had a mini cock sword fight.

The situation also wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a car on the opposite side of the road parked incorrectly on the footpath when the van overtook. The van could have passed the cyclists leaving a reasonable amount of room and gone on his way. Does this make the person who parked incorrectly responsible for the actions of the van driver? Of course not, that would be nonsense, whomever parked that car could have no reasonable expectation that someone would overtake dangerously like that and then act so aggressively to being beeped at.

If you are simply pointing out that the cyclist did something incorrect and assigning him absolutely no blame then, honestly, you've wasted a lot of time laboring a meaningless point.

Ush1 wrote: »

I couldn't put a number on what exactly you're asking as I'm not looking at it in a context of blame,

Ush1 wrote: »

the cyclist is not totally innocent there.

Ush1 wrote: »

I've previously said both were in the wrong.

Ray Palmer · 01-05-2013 06:20PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not about to get into a semantics argument but it was passive aggressive, it was non verbal aggression.

It isn't semantics it is just completely incorrect term. You are being passive aggressive and obviously so, the cyclist was not passive aggressive. If you think that aggression that is non verbal is passive aggression it would include punching:rolleyes:

You deflect every direct question or statement. There is no gesture made at the driver and ANYBODY that would take that as aggression needs help. I accept that the horn could be seen as aggression but to do so and go to physical altercation is no way acceptable.

It would be no defense in court as any provocation and while you may feel that the cyclist is to blame no court would see it that way. That is because they look at what is reasonable to encounter on the road such as being beeped at.

I don't think the driver would have done that for a car or somebody he didn't see as a soft touch.

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 06:46PM

seamus wrote: »

The beep was necessary to alert the driver to the danger. You disagree, but you're wrong.
In any case, being attacked is not a consequence of beeping. No road user should be required to avoid using their horn lest they be attacked for it.

Powerful reasoning.

It wasn't nessacery and it wasn't to alert the driver. Myself and other posters can see it was to voice displeasure, plain and simple. To think it was a warning is to me naïve or wilful ignorance.

As for being attacked a consequence of beeping, do you think he would have been attacked had he not beeped and just let he driver drive on?

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 06:53PM

JRant wrote: »

You've been banging on long and hard for most of this thread about how it the cyclist was responsible due to him beeping and gesturing.

Please quote it. I have maintained that the cyclist could have been more passive and most likely not had an altercation any further.

JRant wrote: »

There's so much wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin. All I will say though is this is just victim blaming and is quite frankly ridiculous.

I honestly don't mind if you find it ridiculous as it's the truth.

JRant wrote: »

It is not road rage, it's assault, however it is far less common than you are making out. For a good analysis of why this is so I'd recommend 'The science of Fear' by Daniel Gardner. He debunks the myths surrounding many common held beliefs, such as road rage being a common occurrences.

I'm not reading a book as I'm not that interested, I posted a concise link with stats and also my personal experience. You can ignore it if you want.

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 07:00PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It isn't semantics it is just completely incorrect term. You are being passive aggressive and obviously so, the cyclist was not passive aggressive. If you think that aggression that is non verbal is passive aggression it would include punching:rolleyes:

Oh, so you do want to have a semantics argument:

http://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/counsellor-articles/what-is-passive-aggressive-behaviour

Passive aggressive behaviour takes many forms but can generally be described as a non-verbal aggression that manifests in negative behavior

Sounds like using a horn to show you're annoyed to me.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You deflect every direct question or statement. There is no gesture made at the driver and ANYBODY that would take that as aggression needs help. I accept that the horn could be seen as aggression but to do so and go to physical altercation is no way acceptable.

What have I deflected exactly? You have stated road rage is not a common occurance, I have retorted that it is in my experience and posted a link with stats to back it up. Do you accept that or not?

I never said it was acceptable, I said it doesn't surprise me in the slightest as I see people reacting badly to being beeped at all the time.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It would be no defense in court as any provocation and while you may feel that the cyclist is to blame no court would see it that way. That is because they look at what is reasonable to encounter on the road such as being beeped at.

I don't think the driver would have done that for a car or somebody he didn't see as a soft touch.

I never said it would stand up in court? Why do you insist on strawmen? Why is someone on a bike a soft touch, they'd probably be fitter and better able to fight someone that most people driving cars?

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 07:03PM

Knasher wrote: »

The situation also wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a car on the opposite side of the road parked incorrectly on the footpath when the van overtook. The van could have passed the cyclists leaving a reasonable amount of room and gone on his way. Does this make the person who parked incorrectly responsible for the actions of the van driver? Of course not, that would be nonsense, whomever parked that car could have no reasonable expectation that someone would overtake dangerously like that and then act so aggressively to being beeped at.

If you are simply pointing out that the cyclist did something incorrect and assigning him absolutely no blame then, honestly, you've wasted a lot of time laboring a meaningless point.

Blame for what? Getting attacked. A car parked on the road is not the same thing as proactively registering your annoyance at someone for something they did. He could choose to ignore him, which I see lots of people do, or engage him by beeping. he chose the later.

JRant · 01-05-2013 07:09PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Please quote it. I have maintained that the cyclist could have been more passive and most likely not had an altercation any further.

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean number 2? The cyclist was beeping after he had been overtaken and the van had driven on, he wasn't warning he was trying to voice his displeasure at the driver.

Beeping when not necessary is construed as aggression, whether it was possible to harm him or not is totally irrelevant. The driver would not have reacted that way(which was wrong) had the cyclist not beeped at him. Meet aggression with aggression and you get more aggression.

Well here's one example (of many) where you clearly state it was the cyclists fault.
So which is it, was he passive-aggressive or not passive enough?
I can't keep up to be honest.

Ush1 wrote: »

I honestly don't mind if you find it ridiculous as it's the truth.

It's your opinion, not fact.

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not reading a book as I'm not that interested, I posted a concise link with stats and also my personal experience. You can ignore it if you want.

I'm not ignoring anything, I've looked at those statistics and there meaningless for this discussion. If you posted statistics regarding road rage between drivers and cyclists it would have some bearing.
I only suggested the book as you seem to have a deep interest in the matter.

Ush1 · 01-05-2013 07:15PM

You call it blaming, I call it the truth. I think I'll leave it there as this doesn't seem to be going anwhere.

Knasher · 01-05-2013 07:18PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Blame for what? Getting attacked. A car parked on the road is not the same thing as proactively registering your annoyance at someone for something they did. He could choose to ignore him, which I see lots of people do, or engage him by beeping. he chose the later.

Yes he did choose to beep his horn.

As I've said, if you aren't assigning blame then it is only a matter of opinion on whether beeping a horn is a correct response to dangerous overtaking. The actions of the van driver after that are completely immaterial to that question. You think it is incorrect and I think it is acceptable and I'm perfectly happy to leave it at that.

The only reason I thought you were assigning blame is because you said that you didn't think he was completely innocent. As you have now clarified your stance, further discussion on this seems pointless.

JRant · 01-05-2013 07:21PM

Ush1 wrote: »

You call it blaming, I call it the truth. I think I'll leave it there as this doesn't seem to be going anwhere.

So you did say it, glad that's cleared up.

galwaycyclist · 01-05-2013 07:29PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It would be no defense in court as any provocation and while you may feel that the cyclist is to blame no court would see it that way. That is because they look at what is reasonable to encounter on the road such as being beeped at.

Is being beeped at really something that is "reasonable to encounter"? I can think of only one or two occasions in the last year where I might have had a reason to beep at someone in my car.

When is beeping at someone "reasonable"?

Ray Palmer · 02-05-2013 09:02AM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Is being beeped at really something that is "reasonable to encounter"? I can think of only one or two occasions in the last year where I might have had a reason to beep at someone in my car.

When is beeping at someone "reasonable"?

Every car in the country has a horn so it reasonable to expect it to be used at least once a year. The chance of been beeped at are high and there is reasonable expectation that it is encountered while driving.

It happens more than collisions and is common so yes it is reasonable to encounter a car beeping at you and reasonable not to expect somebody to get out of a car and hit you as a result.

Do you really think a judge would think that beeping at a car is an rare occurrence and warrants assault?

AS for whether it reasonable to beep at somebody I think yes perfectly if not why are they required by law and in every car?

Cantona's Collars · 07-12-2013 06:19PM

Driving along a straight stretch of road earlier & 2 cyclists were ahead of me,side by side.The guy on the outside was oblivious to what else was on the road and never even turned to see what might be approaching from behind him.Even as I passed him,he made no attempt to move in from the middle of the road.All it would have taken was a slight wobble from him & he was under my car,the road simply wasn't wide enough.
Any time I see cyclists do this it annoys me after an incident a year or so ago when a guy cycling in the hard shoulder on the N11 hugged the broken yellow line and hit a cats eye just as I was passing him & I almost drove over him as he swerved into the road.
I cycle myself & I always try to keep as far away from traffic as possible but they're seems to be an arrogance with some cyclists who think they have a divine right to put themselves in harms way as they feel they are equal to motorised traffic on the roads.

brianomc · 07-12-2013 06:24PM

So the road wasn't wide enough and you overtook him without leaving enough of a gap and if he wobbled a little you would collide. Good luck poster, you're gonna need it

Seaneh · 07-12-2013 06:25PM

zerks wrote: »

Driving along a straight stretch of road earlier & 2 cyclists were ahead of me,side by side.The guy on the outside was oblivious to what else was on the road and never even turned to see what might be approaching from behind him.Even as I passed him,he made no attempt to move in from the middle of the road.All it would have taken was a slight wobble from him & he was under my car,the road simply wasn't wide enough.
Any time I see cyclists do this it annoys me after an incident a year or so ago when a guy cycling in the hard shoulder on the N11 hugged the broken yellow line and hit a cats eye just as I was passing him & I almost drove over him as he swerved into the road.
I cycle myself & I always try to keep as far away from traffic as possible but they're seems to be an arrogance with some cyclists who think they have a divine right to put themselves in harms way as they feel they are equal to motorised traffic on the roads.

You are a ****ing terrible driver. He didn't put himself in harms way, you did.

Mint Sauce · 07-12-2013 06:29PM

zerks wrote: »

Driving along a straight stretch of road earlier & 2 cyclists were ahead of me,side by side.The guy on the outside was oblivious to what else was on the road and never even turned to see what might be approaching from behind him.Even as I passed him,he made no attempt to move in from the middle of the road.All it would have taken was a slight wobble from him & he was under my car,the road simply wasn't wide enough.
Any time I see cyclists do this it annoys me after an incident a year or so ago when a guy cycling in the hard shoulder on the N11 hugged the broken yellow line and hit a cats eye just as I was passing him & I almost drove over him as he swerved into the road.
I cycle myself & I always try to keep as far away from traffic as possible but they're seems to be an arrogance with some cyclists who think they have a divine right to put themselves in harms way as they feel they are equal to motorised traffic on the roads.

2 a breast is perfectly legal.

Also, if you are a cyclist, you will know that all the road crap of the day is along the hard shoulder and the gutter/kerb, hence cyclists keeping out of it, plus it makes drivers go around them/us, as other wise drivers would only squeze between them and oncoming traffic, forcing the cyclist into the kerbs/gutters.

And that is coming from a driver and cyclist as well.

Cantona's Collars · 07-12-2013 06:48PM

I'll clarify it for those complaining about my driving,the road was wide enough to pass something as big as an artic but the cyclist on the outside kept moving out further into the middle of the road.Even as I went by him he was heading back out for the broken white line.It was his cycling that made the road too narrow.I left him plenty of room but he decided to move into that space I left as I went by him.If it had been a truck passing him,he'd have ended up sucked under it's back wheels.
Even anyone approaching them would have been nervous as to where the cyclist might end up.

TwoShedsJackson · 07-12-2013 06:48PM

zerks wrote: »

I cycle myself & I always try to keep as far away from traffic as possible but they're seems to be an arrogance with some cyclists who think they have a divine right to put themselves in harms way as they feel they are equal to motorised traffic on the roads.

Check the RotR, cyclists are actually classed above cars, so they are more than your equal and it's why you will be at fault if you hit one.

darced · 07-12-2013 06:53PM

This post has been deleted.

Mint Sauce · 07-12-2013 06:54PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Prehaps they/we should, if the government ever decides to introduce it.

Cantona's Collars · 07-12-2013 06:55PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Check the RotR, cyclists are actually classed above cars, so they are more than your equal and it's why you will be at fault if you hit one.

What I meant by that was cyclists who feel they are somehow superhuman when on a bike and forget that there's only one winner if they come into contact with a car or truck.Common sense seems to go out the window with some of them.

I guarantee that if anyone here on their high horses were in the car with me,they'd have been on here cursing what the cyclist was doing.

glic71rods46t0 · 07-12-2013 07:07PM

There are far too many self righteous ar$ehole cyclists about and the law has a lot of catching up to do with the current realities on the road.
Cyclists come on here pontificating about 2 abreast being "perfectly legal" but forget to mention that its only legal when not inconveniencing other road users.
Also, cyclists are slow moving traffic and are obliged to pull in to allow faster traffic to get by - there is case law to support this obligation. Cyclists never get tired of telling us that they are vehicles within the meaning of the RTA when looking for their rights but hypocritically ignore the obligations such a classification puts on them (such as pulling in as slow moving vehicles to as not to impede other traffic).
Respect is a two way street and many cyclists are little better than gurriers on the road.

Zebra3 · 07-12-2013 07:11PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

When is beeping at someone "reasonable"?

Judging by a lot of motorists, whenever they pass by one of their mates who is walking down the road. :rolleyes:

brianomc · 07-12-2013 07:14PM

If he was swerving into the middle of the road without looking behind him then he will pay the price eventually. Hopefully only injuring himself in the process.

Plenty of cyclists don't look behind them before moving out. As do pedestrians stepping off the curb, car drivers pulling out of parking spaces, swerving into cycle lanes to undertake cars turning right. You just gotta think to yourself when out there that everyone else is an idiot. And give them space. If i kept my line/speed on the bike evertime i thought i was in the right and someone was breaking a rule/common sense I would probably have some broken bones.

Back in my driving days I had a guy walking backwards across Leeson St so he could still talk to his mates on the path, lights were green for me, I had no choice but to slow down as i couldnt tell which lane he would be in when I got there. I stopped and let him walk backwards into the car, hopefully scaring some sense into the feckin eejit. His friends got a good laugh out of it anyway

Jawgap · 07-12-2013 07:21PM

zerks wrote: »

What I meant by that was cyclists who feel they are somehow superhuman when on a bike and forget that there's only one winner if they come into contact with a car or truck.Common sense seems to go out the window with some of them.

I guarantee that if anyone here on their high horses were in the car with me,they'd have been on here cursing what the cyclist was doing.

Not superhuman.....just awesome.

mitosis · 07-12-2013 07:25PM

zerks wrote: »

I'll clarify it for those complaining about my driving,the road was wide enough to pass something as big as an artic but the cyclist on the outside kept moving out further into the middle of the road.Even as I went by him he was heading back out for the broken white line.It was his cycling that made the road too narrow.I left him plenty of room but he decided to move into that space I left as I went by him.If it had been a truck passing him,he'd have ended up sucked under it's back wheels.
Even anyone approaching them would have been nervous as to where the cyclist might end up.

Should have driven between them

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments