Cyclist Wanted (threads merged)

[Herbie]

I just watched the video again.

The matter could have been easily avoid.
The White audi was the only car sitting at the lights, and wasnt in the ASL.
Two cyclist pull along side the audi, then a further two pull directly infront of the audi for no reason at all. There was only one car at the lights, so why not just wait behind, as the car is always going to be quicker away from the lights.
My conclusion is that the cyclist was a nobber. And chasing people down when the red mist hits you never ends well.

exactly

 

[roadrash]

[QUOTE 2888557, member: 30090"]I'd have probably hit the guy as well.[/quote]
or as my dad used to say" bang both your bloody heads together and grow up".....and he did, to me and my brother........... several times

 

[Beebo]

It's called an Advanced Stop Line, designed so that cyclists can get to the front of the traffic at lights. If you don't like them then lobby for their abolition. If you don't understand how they work maybe you should avoid them, but don't critcise someone who does.

As for 'deliberately holding up cars'? Do you understand the concept of Primary Position?

Sitting deliberately in front of a single car at an ASL is not what they were designed for. If you want to take primary do it behind the car. The cyclist needlessly put himself in a position of danger for no gain.

These videos are useful for discussing the various option open to us all when we choose how we navigate through traffic. Everyone in that video could have handled the situation better, from the driver, passenger, cyclist and camera man. No one comes out of it looking good.

 

[derrick]

It's called an Advanced Stop Line, designed so that cyclists can get to the front of the traffic at lights. If you don't like them then lobby for their abolition. If you don't understand how they work maybe you should avoid them, but don't critcise someone who does.

As for 'deliberately holding up cars'? Do you understand the concept of Primary Position?

Take up primary position fair enough if there is not a lot of room, but he was going straight on there was no danger, he was just wanted to be up front,

 

[Peter Armstrong]

It's an ASL - it's there to allow cyclists to get ahead of the traffic. The clue is in the name. The driver, and, it seems, most of you lot, don't know how an ASL works.

The driver is totally out of order for moving into the ASL box - particularly because there are cyclists already in it. And our cyclist - quite rightly - calls him on it. At this point the only decent course of action the driver can take is to wait for the cyclists to clear the junction - but he's committed now, backing out clearly isn't an option he's considered and when the lights change he speeds off giving no consideration the the safety of the cyclist who has stopped near his vehicle. Whether he runs over the cyclist's foot or not, at this point he's driving - at some speed - way too close to a cyclist. If he'd run over my foot I'd have hunted him down too.

The cyclist was right to chase him down, and right to call him a prick. But he certainly didn't deserve to be assaulted in the street. I'm astounded that some of you think he was out-of-order and that he somehow had it coming. WTF?
And what the hell were all those other cyclists doing? just stood around doing F all? You've just witnessed another human being get a smack in the mouth. Are we all supposed to stand aside with our heads bowed when people act like twunts in public? Not say anything? People who go through life behaving like this can't be allowed to get away with it - because the next time or the time after that it's my 12 year old daughter on the receiving end of his attitude towards cyclists.

In that situation I'd have done exactly the same as our cyclist in the video, right up to the point the assailant got out of the car ..

Very well put

 

[400bhp]

I probably would have sat in front of him again at the next set of lights, indiscretely tying an imaginary shoelace.

If he ran over his foot, then he's every right to be fecked off, but since this seems to have come out of thin air then it's just pure speculation.

Going in the ASL when there's one car at the lights is bloody pointless, but there you go. No need for the driver to do what he did. Petty bollox really (hency why I would have done some petty bollox above).

 

[400bhp]

It's an ASL - it's there to allow cyclists to get ahead of the traffic. The clue is in the name.

Is traffic one car?

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 2888557, member: 30090"]I'd have probably hit the guy as well.[/quote]
Hit which guy? And for what?

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 2888693, member: 30090"]The cyclist, for being an aggressive, ignorant over bearing twat.[/quote]
Really? If you found yourself in a similar situation you would have got out of your car and hit the cyclist? You do know that assaulting someone is illegal in this country don't you? Whether or not you think they are a twat.

You'd better hope that the cyclist you jump out of your car to hit isn't me.

 

[glenn forger]

Seriously, you get out of your car and hit people if they remonstrate after nearly being hurt?

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 2888715, member: 30090"]Yeah, I also know that you can have mitigating circumstances as displayed in the vid by the idiot cyclist.[/quote]
You know not very much if you think your entitled to hit someone because they call you a nasty name.

 

[glenn forger]

Can you explain what "mitigating circs" you would offer to explain your behaviour?

 

[glenn forger]

[QUOTE 2888719, member: 30090"]Remonstrating is putting your face right up to glass and screaming YOU f***ING what ever it was?

If the guy felt threatened, and I'm not saying he did or did not but he'd be well within his right to defend himself - and his personal property.[/quote]

The driver was being shouted at. The passenger got out and assaulted the cyclist. Explain how you would explain if you were the passenger. What mitigating circs would you cite?

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 2888719, member: 30090"]Remonstrating is putting your face right up to glass and screaming YOU f***ING what ever it was?

If the guy felt threatened, and I'm not saying he did or did not but he'd be well within his right to defend himself - and his personal property.[/quote]
The cyclist, I think it's safe to presume, was shouting at the driver. Did the back seat passenger feel in any danger from this do you think?

 

[400bhp]

Careful Beano, the internet warmongers are on to ya