Perhaps the people in the "Road ragers ..." thread claiming that the cyclist should have been further over to the left might want to watch this video.
I'm pretty sure some people watched it with the sound off.Unlikely, they haven't even watched the road rager video properly. They claim the cyclist should have moved over when the only gap was a car length at six seconds in. The rager had gone past by 11 seconds, and at the start of the video wasn't even behind the cyclist.
I think we both know what the police are likely to do...I hope they reported the driver of the parked car. Clear offence under Regulation 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.
Why? I've seen some fairly clear cut videos which have apparently no further action taken.But it's the cabbie's video so they might get off their lard arses and pursue it.
Ah, yes. Do they really think the footage I've seen is embellished in any way?Very often the police won't do anything if the person whose recording it is was the cyclist - because they stupidly suggested it could have been doctored, etc. Yet they'll accept video from third parties.
The Met are notorious for this...
I don't know? But it's an excuse that is often trotted out. I've had it myself. I've also been told I can't be an independent witness to an incident involving another cyclist as I was a cyclist too.
Barmy!
And people wonder why cyclists film their commutes and load footage on Youtube.I pointed out that they didn't seem to apply that logic to motorists... and basically got told to shut up or they'd nick me.
I'm not sure some people weren't watching with the video turned off, going on the difference between what I saw and what they claimed to seeI'm pretty sure some people watched it with the sound off.