Horror Video Of Motorist Abuse!

[Mugshot]

You asked me for my suggestion, and I told you.

No. But anyone comtemplating such a move is clearly an idiot with a death wish.

The guy already said there was no room to overtake. Moving left would have at least acknowledged that he was in the way of faster moving traffic.

It didn't look like that to me.

Ok, but again, why should he?
Maybe, maybe he was checking to see how free flowing the traffic was to see if there was a filtering opportunity.
Why? The traffic behind can see he's slower moving whether he's in primary or secondary. Whos way was he in exactly?
Well it looked like it to me, so maybe we'll agree to disagree, however, that doesn't answer why the vehicles behind couldn't have used the outside lane does it?

 

[black'n'yellow]

Ok, but again, why should he?

Other than the fact that the bridge looks like a total death trap for cyclists, there's no reason why he should or shouldn't. It was my suggestion - and if you remember, you asked me for my suggestion. It's what I would have done.

Why? The traffic behind can see he's slower moving whether he's in primary or secondary. Whos way was he in exactly?

see the bold bit...

 

[Mugshot]

The bicycle is traffic, he has as much right to be on the road as the motor vehicles. Whilst he may be slower moving and be human powered that doesn't mean he's not allowed to be on that particular stretch of road. It is very unlikely that the car driver would have acted in that way to a road sweeper or a tractor or certain of the contractors vehicles which would have likely been traveling at a similar or lesser speeds to the cyclist, so what's the difference? Do you think one of those should take any of the actions which you've suggested, and if not why not?
You're not subservient to other traffic because they are faster or because they pay road tax () it's not about being an urban warrior either as someone else has suggested, the guy on the bike had the right to make his journey without the fear of bullying by other road users simply because they felt superior because they're in a bigger/quicker vehicle. Do you think the journeys of the car drivers were more important?
I'm all for consideration and politeness between road users, I'll do my best not to impede other road users unnecessarily, but if it's a choice between my safety and their convenience I know which wins, and I would suggest that if you feel you are an inconvenience to other road users you either think again or quit cycling

 

[black'n'yellow]

and I would suggest that if you feel you are an inconvenience to other road users you either think again or quit cycling

Fortunately, I don't feel that way - that's a relief...

 

[Mugshot]

Fortunately, I don't feel that way - that's a relief...

Good for you
I don't suppose the cyclist in the video thought he was an inconvenience either.
Thanks for ignoring the questions I asked BTW

 

[black'n'yellow]

Thanks for ignoring the questions I asked BTW

which one - the rhetorical one, or the one that made no sense..??

 

[Mugshot]

which one - the rhetorical one, or the one that made no sense..??

*Sigh*
Ok then, here you go.
Why couldn't the other traffic have overtaken him in the outside lane once they were clear of the cones?
Just because he's slower moving doesn't lessen the fact he's allowed to be there and is part of the traffic, so who exactly is he holding up?
What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?
Would the motorist have acted in the same way to any other slower moving vehicle?
Do you think that any other slower moving vehicle, E.G. tractor, road sweeper or contractors vehicle, should have taken any of the actions you have suggested?
If you don't think any other slower moving vehicle should have taken any of the actions you've suggested, why don't you?
Do you think the journey the motorist was taking was more important than the cyclists?
You seem to have missed those

 

[Drago]

What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?

Erm... a bicycle?

 

[black'n'yellow]

Why couldn't the other traffic have overtaken him in the outside lane once they were clear of the cones?

It did - or could have done. Except for the guy who stopped.

Just because he's slower moving doesn't lessen the fact he's allowed to be there and is part of the traffic, so who exactly is he holding up?

Other traffic

What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?

Width

Would the motorist have acted in the same way to any other slower moving vehicle?

Nobody knows - except the motorist concerned.

Do you think that any other slower moving vehicle, E.G. tractor, road sweeper or contractors vehicle, should have taken any of the actions you have suggested?

No, for the reasons given above.

If you don't think any other slower moving vehicle should have taken any of the actions you've suggested, why don't you?

Duplicate question. See above.

Do you think the journey the motorist was taking was more important than the cyclists?

It is not possible to establish the relative importance of either journey.

Good fun though, keep it up...

 

[sabian92]

Other than the fact that the bridge looks like a total death trap for cyclists, there's no reason why he should or shouldn't. It was my suggestion - and if you remember, you asked me for my suggestion. It's what I would have done.

see the bold bit...

It is. I'm not one for getting cyclists off the road (obviously!) but this is one of the places that they should be banned from like motorways. Further down it turns into a dual carriageway of 70mph but people are doing that well before the change in speed limit. Really dangerous stretch of road - like I said previously, only seen 3 people do it and I ride over the footpath because it's that dangerous.

 

[Mugshot]

@ b'n'y I don't want to use up too much internet space by re-quoting everything.
There was no need for the cyclist to move over to the left immediately after the cones finished (although I think he was on his way) as you suggested he needed to because, as you have stated above, the traffic was perfectly able to pass in the outside lane. I'm glad we agree
As you have said yourself the lane was not wide enough to perform a safe overtake, so the cyclists position is irrelevant, the fact that he is narrower than any other slower moving vehicle is also irrelevant, there is either sufficient room for a safe pass or there isn't and in this case, as you have said yourself, there isn't. I'm glad we agree again
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the motorists journey was not of any particular urgency considering he found the time to pull over for a chat to the cyclist, I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that he wouldn't have pulled across any other motorised vehicle and forced them to stop in order to remonstrate with them and just for good measure I'm going to go out on yet another limb and suggest that you would guess the same.
It would appear that you feel that if you're in/on a slow moving vehicle and you are wider than a bicycle you are not an inconvenience, even if you are travelling at approximately the same rate, if you are the same width as a bicycle, I.E. a bicycle, you should kowtow to faster moving traffic. We don't agree on that

It is. I'm not one for getting cyclists off the road (obviously!) but this is one of the places that they should be banned from like motorways. Further down it turns into a dual carriageway of 70mph but people are doing that well before the change in speed limit. Really dangerous stretch of road - like I said previously, only seen 3 people do it and I ride over the footpath because it's that dangerous.

It may well, as you suggest, be a particularly hairy piece of road to negotiate, as it happens I am actually quite familiar with Runcorn bridge, however is the best course of action to ban cyclists from it or to improve the thing to make it safer for cyclists to use?

 

[black'n'yellow]

@ b'n'y I don't want to use up too much internet space by re-quoting everything.

As you can see, I have no such concerns. Anyway, it helps with clarity.

There was no need for the cyclist to move over to the left immediately after the cones finished (although I think he was on his way) as you suggested he needed to because, as you have stated above, the traffic was perfectly able to pass in the outside lane. I'm glad we agree

Read it back - that doesn't even make sense.

As you have said yourself the lane was not wide enough to perform a safe overtake, so the cyclists position is irrelevant, the fact that he is narrower than any other slower moving vehicle is also irrelevant, there is either sufficient room for a safe pass or there isn't and in this case, as you have said yourself, there isn't. I'm glad we agree again

Sorry to interrupt your self-satisfaction, but we don't agree actually. This is all about 'how it looks' - and the fact that the cyclist is persistently in the middle of the road would imply to me that he didn't give a sh1t about other road users behind him. At least if he had attempted to ride closer to the left, rather than in the middle of the lane, it might have given an indication that he was at least sensitive to the situation that he was putting himself and others in.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the motorists journey was not of any particular urgency considering he found the time to pull over for a chat to the cyclist, I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that he wouldn't have pulled across any other motorised vehicle and forced them to stop in order to remonstrate with them and just for good measure I'm going to go out on yet another limb and suggest that you would guess the same.

More guesswork.

It would appear that you feel that if you're in/on a slow moving vehicle and you are wider than a bicycle you are not an inconvenience, even if you are travelling at approximately the same rate, if you are the same width as a bicycle, I.E. a bicycle, you should kowtow to faster moving traffic. We don't agree on that

Different situations demand different behaviour. But yes, in that situation that is EXACTLY what I would have done (the other alternative being not riding across the bridge in the first place). Doing that would almost certainly have avoided the confrontation, the resulting video and the inevitable and rather sanctimonious defence of what is, after all, some pretty idiotic and suicidal riding.

 

[sabian92]

It may well, as you suggest, be a particularly hairy piece of road to negotiate, as it happens I am actually quite familiar with Runcorn bridge, however is the best course of action to ban cyclists from it or to improve the thing to make it safer for cyclists to use?

I can't see how - you can't widen it to put cycle lanes on it, or anything else for that matter. The best that cyclists can do is ride on the footpath.

 

[Bill-H]

A bridge i was already advised to avoid on my lejog and back and i wont be using it

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Clearly no car can safely overtake the cyclist during the bridge and roadworks section. Why then does the cyclist think it's safe to attempt to overtake a car under the same conditions? Far too many cyclists claim to want the same rights as other road users yet they want all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that being a cyclist brings.