Hit and Run in Knightsbridge. Cyclist chases down motorist.

[Kookas]

Some obnoxious replies in this thread, some suggesting the driver was innocent, or that he accepted blame - he did neither. Others even justify his driving. Did you guys actually watch the video, or are you just guessing what happened?

 

[4F]

Driver was an idiot and good on the ped coming forward and having a go. However I would add poor cycling by the OP in the way he undertook the other cyclists with horn blaring.

and as for 6 camera's

 

[gaz]

Some obnoxious replies in this thread, some suggesting the driver was innocent, or that he accepted blame - he did neither. Others even justify his driving. Did you guys actually watch the video, or are you just guessing what happened?

Unless I skipped over someones post. I don't see anyone saying the driver was innocent, or justifying his driving.

 

[Kookas]

Is this one of these spoof comedy shows?

I am a regular cyclist (and driver) in that part of London - and have been so for over thirty years.

The driving was poor-to-middling, but by no means unusual.

The headcammer appeared (to my untrained eye) slightly madder than a box of slightly mad frogs.

He was passed quite closely, as were the other cyclists, but these things happen.

He then barged past on the inside of the 'victim', shouting about stopping the driver. It all got slightly weird.

I was unaware initially that the horn was on the headcammer's bicycle. Its use was bizarre, intimidatory and excessive.

The driver appeared to accept he'd driven badly, but this was not enough for our vigilante of truth and justice.

Bizarrely, having honked and yelled for some time, he steps beyond irony by telling the bemused driver to stop shouting.

I couldn't watch to the end, so I have no idea whether the 'victim' appeared.

This cyclo-vigilante doesn't represent me, doesn't dignify cycling and doesn't make the roads safer. I think he's very clever to do all that shouting and riding and honking and amateur policing... But if it's for anything more than entertainment, it has me baffled.

This whole post is basically justifying the guy and his driving, because it's 'not unusual', and manages to make the video cyclist out to be a bigger problem.

You'd rather he waited for the next lane to open up so he could pass 'safely', by which point the car would be long gone.

 

[gaz]

This whole post is basically justifying the guy and his driving, because it's 'not unusual', and manages to make the video cyclist out to be a bigger problem.

You'd rather he waited for the next lane to open up so he could pass 'safely', by which point the car would be long gone.

Saying a type of driving is not unusual is not justifying it.

 

[Kookas]

Saying a type of driving is not unusual is not justifying it.

It's implying that the driving isn't a problem, which is essentially justifying it by dismissing it and then drawing attention to something far less serious i.e. the video cyclist.

 

[PK99]

You'd rather he waited for the next lane to open up so he could pass 'safely', by which point the car would be long gone.

If he could not pass safely - and he did not - then yes, he should not have undertaken the two cyclists. Are you suggesting that a dangerous pass by another cyclist, risking knocking the other cyclist into the path of traffic is somehow acceptable?

 

[gaz]

It's implying that the driving isn't a problem, which is essentially justifying it by dismissing it and then drawing attention to something far less serious i.e. the video cyclist.

Read it like that if you will. I personally don't see it like that and as your original post where you implied that multiple people where saying such things, which is clearly not the case.

 

[TrafficDroid]

I think most people seem to have missed the fact that Traffic Droid has joined the forum and is actually the original poster for this post.

I wonder if the comments would have been so directly rude if they had realised!

TD - welcome, and I did comment on your welcome post that commuting can get worse than YouTube comments sometimes!

I can see that already. Definitely not youtube. Most unaware of the horros suffered at the hand of a motorist that left me for dead on a quiet street on a rainy day at night...broken ribs and all that goes with it. Lucky to be alive and thats when Traffic Droid was born. But then again one could always catch a bus..lol Cheers buddy.

 

[Kookas]

If he could not pass safely - and he did not - then yes, he should not have undertaken the two cyclists. Are you suggesting that a dangerous pass by another cyclist, risking knocking the other cyclist into the path of traffic is somehow acceptable?

That would be unlikely, since on a bike you can see pretty much precisely where your handlebars are going. You don't have blind spots; your vehicle isn't much wider than you are. If you filter, then you know what I mean.

Do you make sure to give other pedestrians 1.5m when you're walking? After all, they could slip, bounce off you and fly into the road.

 

[4F]

That would be unlikely, since on a bike you can see pretty much precisely where your handlebars are going. You don't have blind spots; your vehicle isn't much wider than you are. If you filter, then you know what I mean.

Do you make sure to give other pedestrians 1.5m when you're walking? After all, they could slip, bounce off you and fly into the road.

Unlikely ,are you are able to second guess what the cyclist in front of you is going to do when carrying out an undertake ? Have you a sixth sense ?

 

[Andrew_P]

That would be unlikely, since on a bike you can see pretty much precisely where your handlebars are going. You don't have blind spots; your vehicle isn't much wider than you are. If you filter, then you know what I mean.

Do you make sure to give other pedestrians 1.5m when you're walking? After all, they could slip, bounce off you and fly into the road.

Its bad enough getting overtaken by a bike in normal circumstance as it can make you jump, let alone someone undertaking while blasting a horn between the kerb etc. I can understand he was in the moment but to say it is an acceptable manoeuvre on a busy road is quite strange.

The driver was an arse, I think we all know that, but one of many similar arses..

 

[Kookas]

Read it like that if you will. I personally don't see it like that and as your original post where you implied that multiple people where saying such things, which is clearly not the case.

If that is not what he's saying, then what IS he saying? Every line that brings up the driver and his crap driving finishes with something that deflects attention away from the driver and onto the video cyclist - 'because these things happen.'

And yes, there are other posts nearby which follow the same lines.

 

[TrafficDroid]

That would be unlikely, since on a bike you can see pretty much precisely where your handlebars are going. You don't have blind spots; your vehicle isn't much wider than you are. If you filter, then you know what I mean.

Do you make sure to give other pedestrians 1.5m when you're walking? After all, they could slip, bounce off you and fly into the road.

lol Good answer

 

[TrafficDroid]

A sen

Its bad enough getting overtaken by a bike in normal circumstance as it can make you jump, let alone someone undertaking while blasting a horn between the kerb etc. I can understand he was in the moment but to say it is an acceptable manoeuvre on a busy road is quite strange.

The driver was an arse, I think we all know that, but one of many similar arses..

A sense of immidiate urgency to catch the Driver before he could get away with it. I wonder if he reported himself after that collision. Its 24 hrs after such an event took place.