Zebra crossing footage

[r04DiE]

He thought there was a sufficiently wide clear path through the crossing, so even if a walker fell, he would still be clear and not have committed any offence, as @srw and @snorri correctly explained. He just failed to allow for the mistaken vigilante doing a U-turn and grabbing him.

The best way to guarantee a clear path and no collision, is to stop, just like any other decent-minded road user would, no?

 

[mjr]

I can't believe people are sticking up for that piss poor bit of cycling.

I'm not sticking up for it. I'm just trying to explain why/how he got it wrong. It seems a fairly understandable mistake, so I'm surprised by the confusion.

 

[mjr]

The best way to guarantee a clear path and no collision, is to stop, just like any other decent-minded road user would, no?

I would have stopped when the crossing was that busy, yes. It's not safe to pass that close behind a pedestrian because they can turn on the spot.

 

[r04DiE]

I would have stopped when the crossing was that busy, yes. It's not safe to pass that close behind a pedestrian because they can turn on the spot.

Not only is it unsafe, it's pointless as well.

 

[steveindenmark]

Lack of consideration on both parts but its hard to start a fight when you are clipped into a bike.

 

[mjr]

Not only is it unsafe, it's pointless as well.

How do you figure it's pointless?

Lack of consideration on both parts but its hard to start a fight when you are clipped into a bike.

Real pros start a fight without stopping, let alone unclipping:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2N3pxmYXl4

 

[r04DiE]

How do you figure it's pointless?

How do you figure it isn't? I mean, what was the point of it? To save unclipping, time, brake blocks, rim wear, cable life? You tell me, please.

 

[mjr]

How do you figure it isn't? I mean, what was the point of it? To save unclipping, time, brake blocks, rim wear, cable life? You tell me, please.

Ultimately, it saves energy and that rider looked a bit unsteady so maybe really wanted to avoid stopping. I don't agree with it but I think I see the likely point of the attempt.

Now, I asked first: why's it pointless?

 

[r04DiE]

Ultimately, it saves energy...

Yes, I know that, but at what cost? And how much extra energy do you think he expended in the exchange with the guy trying to cross the road? I'd say his net energy was a good deal lower than it would have been if he'd have stopped, like he should have done. So, again, I fail to see the point of the manuever at all.

...and that rider looked a bit unsteady so maybe really wanted to avoid stopping.

That would be because he was trying to avoid connecting with the bloke on the crossing.

I don't agree with it but I think I see the likely point of the attempt.

What is it then?

Now, I asked first: why's it pointless?

See above: because I fail to see the point in it and your argument fails to prove otherwise.

 

[mjr]

Yes, I know that, but at what cost? And how much extra energy do you think he expended in the exchage with the guy trying to cross the road? I'd say his net energy was a good deal lower than it would have been if he'd have stopped, like he should have done.

Maybe, but what he was attempting would have saved him energy if it had been possible. How can anyone who cycles not see the point in that?

 

[EnPassant]

Real pros start a fight without stopping, let alone unclipping:

Liked for this. Quality.

still not sure of my view on the other bit, still thinking (cogs whirr....)

 

[r04DiE]

Maybe, but what he was attempting would have saved him energy if it had been possible.

But it wasn't possible, was it?

How can anyone who cycles not see the point in that?

What, see the point in doing something that isn't possible? Sorry, no, I don't see it.

 

[Metal8]

Let's face it, I see this kind of nobber cyclist every day. Nobody should stick up for him as a few posts seem to be doing!
The cloth capped hipster maybe shouldn't have done it but who's to say he doesn't encounter that sort of cyclist every day?

Why should anybody be going that fast coming up to a zebra crossing anyway? It's dangerous and inconsiderate and gives all cyclists a bad rep. Just cause the taxi did it, he was wrong too!
Just slow down earlier like you would have to in a car.
Fed up with cyclists thinking that they shouldn't behave like other road vehicles.
And I'm a cyclist and a car driver both for almost 30 years.

It's laughable that there are campaigns to get better driving for buses and HGV's when turning left, all very admirable, but the amount of cyclists who ride in the gutter and cut up the left hand side is dangerous and inconsiderate.

I view this incident in the same way.
These modern born again cyclists are taking the driving culture of me, me ,me into cycling on the roads. Bet they also own Land Rovers

Tin hat and duck

 

[mjr]

Fed up with cyclists thinking that they shouldn't behave like other road vehicles.
And I'm a cyclist and a car driver both for almost 30 years.

While the cyclist in the OP was wrong and I agree that there seems to be an increasing number of MGIF cyclists, I'm fed up with some car drivers suggesting that cyclists should behave like motorists!

The laws for cycling and motoring are slightly different with good reason. If you want, you can go round pretending to be a motor vehicle and making brum-brum noises while riding your bike, but don't expect everyone to share that delusion and ignore some benefits of cycling.

 

[r04DiE]

While the cyclist in the OP was wrong and I agree that there seems to be an increasing number of MGIF cyclists, I'm fed up with some car drivers suggesting that cyclists should behave like motorists!

The laws for cycling and motoring are slightly different with good reason. If you want, you can go round pretending to be a motor vehicle and making brum-brum noises while riding your bike, but don't expect everyone to share that delusion and ignore some benefits of cycling.

Nobody is suggesting that anybody does that, you are way off the topic under discussion now and way off your original POV. You started off defending him:

He thought there was a sufficiently wide clear path through the crossing, so even if a walker fell, he would still be clear and not have committed any offence, as @srw and @snorri correctly explained. He just failed to allow for the mistaken vigilante doing a U-turn and grabbing him.

Then you tried justifying his actions:

Ultimately, it saves energy and that rider looked a bit unsteady so maybe really wanted to avoid stopping. I don't agree with it but I think I see the likely point of the attempt.

Now you're suggesting that people that don't agree with you are "pro cycle around pretending that you're in a motor vehicle". I'd drop this while you still can if I were you.