Horror Video Of Motorist Abuse!

[on the road]

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.

60 mph, but there's an exit before that.

 

[sabian92]

60 mph, but there's an exit before that.

It's 50 then it goes to 70. It's a normal dual carriageway.

 

[MrJamie]

The driving was awful and horribly aggressive, the driver deserves everything he gets in this instance, but in terms of exercising our right to cycle wherever were legally entitled (not that this is necessarily relevant to the cyclist in the video) sometimes i don't think its as simple as who's in the right, theres no point being in the right if you're 6ft under.

 

[mr_hippo]

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?

What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge. How about a new ferry service? You would have to spend millions dredging up years of mud and slutch and, by the way, the Manchester Ship Canal is in the way!
There are plans for the old bridge wnen the new one opens - http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/about-the-mersey-gateway-project/future-of-the-silver-jubilee-bridge/

 

[Mugshot]

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

I apologise if you didn't understand me, I'll try again for you.
In post #39 you state that the cyclist is both stupid and inconsiderate. You then suggest that one of the ways he demonstrates that is by not pulling to left immediately after the cones, see #45. However in post #57 you tell us that the traffic which had been behind the cyclist could have and indeed did overtake the cyclist after the cones ended by using the outside lane. I fail to see how he was being inconsiderate to the motorists behind if they were able to safely overtake him.

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.

Maybe he should doff his cap and tug his forelock whilst he rides over on the left so there's no mistaking that he's very sorry for being on the road.

But yes, in that situation that is EXACTLY what I would have done

You do know what kowtow means don't you? There is not a hierarchy of vehicles based on size and speed. You seem to believe that other slow moving vehicles do not need to find an alternative route or offer apology to the drivers which they are travelling more slowly than because they are wider than a bicycle. The cars behind the bicycle are not more important than him because they are larger, faster or noisier and neither are the occupants.
If you were saying that you felt it was a dangerous section of road and it was in the interests of the cyclists safety to avoid it I would understand the sentiments, but you seem to be more concerned with not offending the motorists. You appear to be suggesting that the cyclist is inconsiderate because he is a slower moving vehicle. The silver Focus in front of the cyclist disappears from view at the 53 second mark of the video, the cyclist exits the road works at approximately 1min18secs, I'll leave you to work out how inconsiderate he was being. BTW the car driver stopped to remonstrate with the cyclist at the 1min30sec mark and drove off at the 2min17sec mark.
Discretion may be advisable on that section of road, but the cyclist is not inconsiderate for using it. He may be stupid, but he is not stupid because another road user chose to try to bully him for having the temerity to travel at a slower pace than that particular driver found acceptable.

 

[Mugshot]

What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge. How about a new ferry service? You would have to spend millions dredging up years of mud and slutch and, by the way, the Manchester Ship Canal is in the way!
There are plans for the old bridge wnen the new one opens - http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/about-the-mersey-gateway-project/future-of-the-silver-jubilee-bridge/

I'm not sure but I think you may have wanted to quote sabian92 #58

 

[Mugshot]

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.

As far as I can see from the posts here the footpath is not shared use, perhaps a change there would be a start.

 

[Mugshot]

The driving was awful and horribly aggressive, the driver deserves everything he gets in this instance, but in terms of exercising our right to cycle wherever were legally entitled (not that this is necessarily relevant to the cyclist in the video) sometimes i don't think its as simple as who's in the right, theres no point being in the right if you're 6ft under.

I agree, but there is a difference between something which is inadvisable and something which is inconsiderate which is what black'n'yellow is arguing.

 

[Pale Rider]

The cyclist is one of those headcam warriors who go out looking for confrontation.

But the motorist is the idiot for falling for it.

 

[sabian92]

As far as I can see from the posts here the footpath is not shared use, perhaps a change there would be a start.

It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.

It's part of NCN562 anyway, it says cyclists dismount but nobody ever does.

What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge.

There is a footpath along side the bridge. It is perfectly suitable to ride over.

 

[Mugshot]

It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.

It's part of NCN562 anyway, it says cyclists dismount but nobody ever does.

Ah right, ok. How about changing the speed limit and/or putting up big signs saying "Cyclists are allowed on the road you know!" What other options do cyclists have to get to the other side?

 

[sabian92]

Ah right, ok. How about changing the speed limit and/or putting up big signs saying "Cyclists are allowed on the road you know!" What other options do cyclists have to get to the other side?

It's a 40 zone anyway - they wouldn't reduce it any further.

There is the footpath, or failing that you have to get the train to Lime Street in Liverpool or ride via Warrington. Not ideal.

 

[Mugshot]

It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.

There is a footpath along side the bridge. It is perfectly suitable to ride over.

I don't understand your edit sorry.

 

[sabian92]

I don't understand your edit sorry.

You can ride over it but it is only a narrow footpath, you aren't technically allowed you ride over it, even though it's part of the NCN routes.

 

[Big boy]

i have no sound but im sure i woulda pulled him outa the car by his hair lol, there are some mouthy people in the world.