# Anyone on here?



## pimp my TT (Mar 15, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pushing-bike-taxi-shocking-act-road-rage.html


----------



## jokskilove (Sep 10, 2013)

I hope not!


----------



## scottitoohotti (Oct 7, 2013)

Lol! 50:50 really...

The driver wouldn't punch him for nothing so he obviously wound him up enough!


----------



## DPG (Dec 7, 2005)

Why didn't the cyclist stay in the side?

Almost as bad as scooter drivers that pull up to the front of a queue then drive about 15mph in the middle of the lane.

Can understand why he got whacked.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Cyclist started it and got banjoed. :roll:

Daft b****rd deserved it, I'd have knocked him out too. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lollypop86 (Oct 26, 2013)

brian1978 said:


> Lmao, daft b****rd deserved it, I'd have knocked him out too. :lol: :lol: :lol:


+1 even more so if it were nickg lol

J
Xx


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

Typical Daily Mail story! :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

DPG said:


> Why didn't the cyclist stay in the side?


Cyclists are supposed to use the cycle box. Also, it's illegal to drive into the cycle box on a red light like the Audi did. If you all watched that and thought the cyclist was the one in the wrong then I despair.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think most of those cyclists were obeying more laws than the ones I see regularly jumping red traffic lights or riding around in darkness with no lights or even on the wrong side of the road :roll:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

*Rule 178*. There is a reason for it!
_Some drivers need it tattooed on their face with a rusty bill-hook. _

Edit:- _Rule 178. _


----------



## Stampers (Sep 16, 2009)

The cyclist went out of his way to chase the car down to start a fight.
You can see that he didn't even intend on heading in that direction as after the fight had finished, the cyclist got back on his bicycle, turned around, and headed in the opposite direction to where he had been going previously.

Fair enough, the Audi moved forward into the cycle box, but it's no reason for a self-righteous cyclist to think that he can abuse people as and when he pleases. I don't condone either parties action, but the cyclist provoked it. He's lucky that we have strict firearms laws in place in the UK, as that could easily have been a bullet instead of a fist.


----------



## OllieTT (Aug 22, 2013)

Stampers said:


> The cyclist went out of his way to chase the car down to start a fight.
> You can see that he didn't even intend on heading in that direction as after the fight had finished, the cyclist got back on his bicycle, turned around, and headed in the opposite direction to where he had been going previously.
> 
> Fair enough, the Audi moved forward into the cycle box, but it's no reason for a self-righteous cyclist to think that he can abuse people as and when he pleases. I don't condone either parties action, but the cyclist provoked it. He's lucky that we have strict firearms laws in place in the UK, as that could easily have been a bullet instead of a fist.


I couldn't agree more. I think the Audi driver was in the wrong but not enough so to justify that kind of abuse.

I'll be honest I have had a few run in with cyclists and a majority of the ones I've met are self righteous a*******s.

I live in Milton Keynes and we have a redway system for cyclists but they still insist on using the dual carriageways. I have no issue with some road racing cyclists practising but it you are just riding to or from work, use the redways and at least put some b****** lights on at night.

Anyway, rant over. Cyclist got no less than he deserved.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

*Mod edit: Forums have rules too which we should all follow! *


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

So, just to be clear... If you're driving along and someone illegally pulls around you on a red light while you're waiting at a junction, you _wouldn't_ say a word to them, and if you _did_ say something you'd think it was perfectly acceptable for them to thump you? :lol:

If this was a video of a driver chasing down a cyclist who'd gone through a red light to give them some abuse, you'd all be saying "nice one! The cyclist deserved it!"


----------



## OllieTT (Aug 22, 2013)

Spandex said:


> So, just to be clear... If you're driving along and someone illegally pulls around you on a red light while you're waiting at a junction, you _wouldn't_ say a word to them, and if you _did_ say something you'd think it was perfectly acceptable for them to thump you? :lol:
> 
> If this was a video of a driver chasing down a cyclist who'd gone through a red light to give them some abuse, you'd all be saying "nice one! The cyclist deserved it!"


There are ways of talking to people.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Lollypop86 said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Lmao, daft b****rd deserved it, I'd have knocked him out too. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


Hold up!! I'm innocent!! I'll keep my cycling to dirt tracks!! Outrageous!!

Having said that, the cyclist kinda had it coming, you can't shout racist abuse at someone and not expect them to get angry!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

OllieTT said:


> There are ways of talking to people.


Yes, there are ways of dealing with a crap driver that don't involve abuse, and there are ways of dealing with abuse that don't involve getting out your car and punching someone - what stuns me though is that people seem to think the appalling driving and the assault that followed are somehow not as bad as a cyclist using a few choice words...

Not to mention the fact that some people here don't even seem to know how traffic lights with advanced stop lines work and actually thought the Audi driver didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

What did the cyclist say/shout that was racist ? 
I must have missed that bit.
I heard him bleep a couple of times.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> What did the cyclist say/shout ?
> I must have missed that bit.


A lot of it was beeped out. Sounded like "F*****g p***k" and a few other swearwords. Didn't hear anything racist - both people were white and I don't see how the cyclist could have worked out the drivers nationality.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

Why is this in the paper now it's old news happened nearly a year ago :? :?


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

it is quite typical in london for cyclists to be very ott about cars taking their personal space on the roads. i mean they do pay towards the upkeep after all....oh no they dont damm. he shouldnt have chased the car down to make his point & mr audi driver had no right to leave his vehicle & certainly not punch the cyclist.that makes the pair of them tossers of the highest order.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Spandex said:


> mullum said:
> 
> 
> > What did the cyclist say/shout ?
> ...


I believe it was the passenger who got out of the car and I'm sure the cyclist could have worked out the drivers RACE ;-)

But yeah, I was wondering how NickG got the idea the rant was racist ?


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

He said F*****g p**ck not as I think nick thought, f*****g p*ki. Not that it matters.

Yes the driver was wrong to encroach into the box but it's not for the cyclist to get on a high horse and shout abuse, simply taking the drivers number and reporting the incident would have been the right thing to do.
The fact he followed him to continue that abuse was stupid and the car driver could argue he feeling threatened and was defending himself.

The cyclist deserved it, the man was right to defend himself.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

yeah my bad, skim reading again! 6 of 1 and all that i guess... not sure about bringing physical violence into it, but there's not need to be shouting abuse like that! lol


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

It was the driver, unless it was a LHD car.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Watch the clip again Brian, the bloke gets back in the rear OS (passenger) door. Perhaps he was being chauffeured :lol:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

The Audi driver was certainly in the wrong, but I'd think the cyclist learned that if you're going to go looking for trouble, you're sometimes going to find it. Bet he won't do it again in a hurry.


----------



## Stampers (Sep 16, 2009)

Spandex said:


> So, just to be clear... If you're driving along and someone illegally pulls around you on a red light while you're waiting at a junction, you _wouldn't_ say a word to them, and if you _did_ say something you'd think it was perfectly acceptable for them to thump you? :lol:


Hold on a second. There's playing the Devil's advocate to show both sides to a story, and then there's shortening the sequence to make it sound like the driver was the only person in the wrong.

Like it has been mentioned, there are ways of pointing out to people that what they're doing is wrong, incorrect or illegal. Shouting abusive words, then going out of your way to chase after them, and finally shouting more abusive content is probably not the best way to deal with it. He could have said something, driver drives off, get his licence plate, then report him. No need to be some kind of a hero and chase after him, not only putting your own welfare at stake but also others around you. Leave that to the Police.

If the two original parties involved dealt with this at court, the cyclist would come off worse (against the driver, not the passenger of the car). A minor traffic law violation would have ended up with a fine and/or points. The verbal harassment received from the cyclist and being pursued by said cyclist could amount to more if the driver wanted to take it further. Verbal harassment is taken as a direct attack at another human being, whereas a traffic violation is not. The passenger would get screwed though as he jumped in for the hell of it.

But I still stand by my opinion that the cyclist put himself in that position.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Its definatly the driver. It looks like it's the rear door In the video because of the crappy video, but in this still it's clearly the Drivers door he came out of.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Sorry Brian, it's definitely not. Even the text of the article says it was the passenger. It's difficult to see in the video because the white paint somewhat blurs the image - but if you pause it just right - you'll see it's the rear OS door he opens.

I've managed to capture a freeze frame at the moment he opens the door handle.

Before I'm criticised by anyone (not Brian) for insisting it was the passenger - I DO realise it's somewhat irrelevant ;-)


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

mullum said:


> Sorry Brian, it's definitely not. Even the text of the article says it was the passenger. It's difficult to see in the video because the white paint somewhat blurs the image - but if you pause it just right - you'll see it's the rear OS door he opens.
> 
> I've managed to capture a freeze frame at the moment he opens the door handle.
> 
> Before I'm criticised by anyone (not Brian) for insisting it was the passenger - I DO realise it's somewhat irrelevant ;-)


It's totally relevant to this discussion as if it was the passenger he was even more out of order as this was between the cyclist and the driver.

Still looks to me in my above still images that the drivers door is open a good 9 inches. Look at the sill of the car. May have been the driver opening the door to tell him to get back in the car??

As for the article saying it was. It's the mail we are talking about, surprised they got "Audi" correct :lol:


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

Yeah i think Mullums right in this (Not quite to the point) argument... I think what confuses the image is that the driver undoes his window and then puts it back up (Probably to gob off!) in between the passenger re-entering the vehicle.


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

brian1978 said:


> It's totally relevant to this discussion as if it was the passenger he was even more out of order as this was between the cyclist and the driver.


 :lol: I tend to find i get more road rage as a passenger though sometimes!!


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

brian1978 said:


> Still looks to me in my above still images that the drivers door is open a good 9 inches. Look at the sill of the car. May have been the driver opening the door to tell him to get back in the car??


In my image I think that's just distortion in the low quality video, the whole side of the car is wonky. The bloke is too far back to be getting in the front.
In your image the door is definitely open though - possibly the driver was going to get out if there was a fight - but refrained once he saw the cyclist back down.
I agree about The Mail, but for once I think they got a fact right !

NickG - it's not an argument. It's a difference of opinion ;-)


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

mullum said:


> NickG - it's not an argument. It's a difference of opinion.


Yeah fair play.

I do think the whole cyclist vs motorist thing is getting blown wholly out of proportion by the media at the minute. I'm sure its been going on for ages but with helmet cams things are now getting broadcast more... you never see the videos of helmet cams of cyclists being idiots to motorists though, you only get what they want you to see.

I guess until Russian Dash Cams take over here it will stay that way too! :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Stampers said:


> If the two original parties involved dealt with this at court, the cyclist would come off worse (against the driver, not the passenger of the car). A minor traffic law violation would have ended up with a fine and/or points. The verbal harassment received from the cyclist and being pursued by said cyclist could amount to more if the driver wanted to take it further. Verbal harassment is taken as a direct attack at another human being, whereas a traffic violation is not. The passenger would get screwed though as he jumped in for the hell of it.


I think what would actually happen in court is that the passenger would get done for some form of assault, the driver would get done for going through the red light and the cyclist would, at worst, get a very light rap on the knuckles for a public disorder offence.

No matter how it's dressed up though, I still find the "got what he deserved" brigade a little bit tragic, and I still think if the situation was reversed they'd side with the motorist every time.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

It won't be long before insurers insist on dash cams - but it does make you think. 
How long before people watch footage on TV and vote for the public humiliation/punishment/execution of those found "guilty". 
Big brother is watching you - who goes - you decide !


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

You are live on the TT Forum, please do not swear!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

mullum said:


> It won't be long before insurers insist on dash cams - but it does make you think.
> How long before people watch footage on TV and vote for the public humiliation/punishment/execution of those found "guilty".
> Big brother is watching you - who goes - you decide !


Did you see the 'White Bear' episode of Black Mirrror?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blac ... od#3490649


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Spandex said:


> Did you see the 'White Bear' episode of Black Mirrror?


Indeed ! That was exactly what I had in mind. Charlie Brooker is great, do you remember when he married Connie Huq and lots of people thought it was a fake story for his Screenwipe series :lol:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

Gazzer said:


> it is quite typical in London for cyclists to be very ott about cars taking their personal space on the roads..


 If you've ever cycled in London, or any busy city/town centre then you would understand why! Rule 178 is to prevent deaths by allowing drivers to see cyclists. The old adage of _'sorry I didn't see you'_ is perfectly acceptable when a motorcyclist gets crippled but when a cyclist is involved there's always an inference that the blame should be shared!



Stampers said:


> Leave that to the Police. .










You really think The Met have time to investigate a breach of Rule178! Get real! :roll:



Stampers said:


> Like it has been mentioned, there are ways of pointing out to people that what they're doing is wrong, incorrect or illegal. Shouting abusive words, then going out of your way to chase after them, and finally shouting more abusive content is probably not the best way to deal with it.....


Perhaps so but if I threw a house brick across the road at you whilst you were walking down the pavement with your missus or kids I bet you'd think twice about crossing the road to pass comment! If I then got a mate of mine to do the same a few days later and then do it again a few days later after a while the comment would be quite an extreme one and probably expressed physically!



Gazzer said:


> ........ he shouldn't have chased the car down to make his point. . . .


Perhaps so but if I threw a house brick across the road at you whilst you were walking down the pavement with your missus or kids I bet you'd think twice about crossing the road to pass comment! If I then got a mate of mine to do the same a few days later and then do it again a few days later after a while the comment would be quite an extreme one and probably expressed physically!



Stampers said:


> ....But I still stand by my opinion that the cyclist put himself in that position.


 He didn't contravene Rule 168, the driver did.



NickG said:


> I do think the whole cyclist vs motorist thing is getting blown wholly out of proportion by the media at the minute. I'm sure its been going on for ages but with helmet cams things are now getting broadcast more... you never see the videos of helmet cams of cyclists being idiots to motorists though, you only get what they want you to see.
> 
> I guess until Russian Dash Cams take over here it will stay that way too! :lol:


 And yet more cyclists will be killed by ignorant dangerous drivers!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> Stampers said:
> 
> 
> > If the two original parties involved dealt with this at court, the cyclist would come off worse (against the driver, not the passenger of the car). A minor traffic law violation would have ended up with a fine and/or points. The verbal harassment received from the cyclist and being pursued by said cyclist could amount to more if the driver wanted to take it further. Verbal harassment is taken as a direct attack at another human being, whereas a traffic violation is not. The passenger would get screwed though as he jumped in for the hell of it.
> ...


I agree. It's a case of escalation - at each stage the offence gets worse and in court, punishment would be awarded in proportion top down in reverse order. Good job we don't all have guns otherwise the cyclist might have pulled his out :?


----------



## NickG (Aug 15, 2013)

I cycle myself and i think actions like that don't serve the reputation of cyclists well at all! Awareness of cyclists to prevent accidents, much alike the think bike campaign are a great idea. However realistically the Audi driver did not cause danger to the cyclist, more-over the cyclist created a problem with his reaction to a minor contravention, which, in reality probably would have caused less danger to cyclists as it meant he could pull away without impediment, preventing the desire to overtake moving cyclists further along the road.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> So, just to be clear... If you're driving along and someone illegally pulls around you on a red light while you're waiting at a junction, you _wouldn't_ say a word to them, and if you _did_ say something you'd think it was perfectly acceptable for them to thump you? :lol:
> 
> If this was a video of a driver chasing down a cyclist who'd gone through a red light to give them some abuse, you'd all be saying "nice one! The cyclist deserved it!"


Interesting comment. Cyclists often think the traffic lights don't apply to them and sail through on red, trusting to their "better judgement" and if wrong, I surmise, expecting drivers to have the responsibility with the lights and avoid them - just as some of them do when cycling along with no lights, in dark conditions and clothing.

As you say, role reversal; we are all car drivers and often see cyclists doing something wrong we need to avoid but swap positions for a while and feel the vulnerability caused by a car driver passing you expecting you to ride in the gutter rather than the road space you are entitled to and you might understand the indignity caused by being bullied by a larger object.

It's interesting. Part of the psychology is related to the height of the head. Cyclists are higher up than car drivers and have better visibility and perhaps with that, a feeling of overseeing a situation but I bet they wouldn't feel the same with a lorry driver - no chance of peering into the window to judge the occupant. Lorry drivers are of course gods with lofty vision (actually restricted) but with the force of might if they forget their responsibilities. And about chasing down; how would we feel being bullied by a lorry? The film Duel springs to mind :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

NickG said:


> I cycle myself and i think actions like that don't serve the reputation of cyclists well at all! Awareness of cyclists to prevent accidents, much alike the think bike campaign are a great idea. However realistically the Audi driver did not cause danger to the cyclist, more-over the cyclist created a problem with his reaction to a minor contravention, which, in reality probably would have caused less danger to cyclists as it meant he could pull away without impediment, preventing the desire to overtake moving cyclists further along the road.


The whole point of the advanced stop lines is to allow cyclists to get to the front, and to allow them to take up a more defensive position so they're safer when the lights change. Junctions are particularly dangerous for cyclists so it makes sense to get them up front and in a dominant position to force cars to notice them (and hopefully to force cars to wait for them rather than attempt to overtake in the middle of a junction, as some intelligent drivers like to do).

The Audi driver went through a red light, slowly and deliberately. I personally don't think going through red lights on purpose is a 'minor contravention'.

I'm not a cyclist, but the way a lot of drivers treat cyclists is frankly shameful. They (literally) have as much right to the roads as we do, and they're a lot more vulnerable - It's just common sense to give them as much space as possible and only overtake when you can do it safely. It's not rocket surgery....


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Interesting comment. Cyclists often think the traffic lights don't apply to them and sail through on red, trusting to their "better judgement" and if wrong, I surmise, expecting drivers to have the responsibility with the lights and avoid them - just as some of them do when cycling along with no lights, in dark conditions and clothing.


As a pedestrian in London, I see cyclists do stupid, illegal things all the time. It's annoying, especially as I have to dodge them sometimes, but at the end of the day, they're the most vulnerable ones on the road and I think as drivers we need to recognise that instead of getting into this 'them and us' mentality.

Having watched some poor guy dying in the road while paramedics and Police officers tried in vain to resuscitate him after a he went under the wheels of a lorry, I can understand why cyclists will do whatever it takes to get away cleanly from junctions ahead of all the other vehicles, where they stand a chance of being seen...


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

I wonder who you think instigated the incident?

The driver for moving their car into the sacred box or the cyclist for backing up his bike and shouting at the passenger, and then riding hell for leather to catch up and shout at the driver?
How do you know the driver was not this blokes wife? If some sanctimonious bell end started screaming at my wife like that over what is a pretty minor error (cyclists make them too) then i would probably have felt like a bit of street law myself.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Matt B said:


> I wonder who you think instigated the incident?
> 
> The driver for moving their car into the sacred box or the cyclist for backing up his bike and shouting at the passenger, and then riding hell for leather to catch up and shout at the driver?
> How do you know the driver was not this blokes wife? If some sanctimonious bell end started screaming at my wife like that over what is a pretty minor error (cyclists make them too) then i would probably have felt like a bit of street law myself.


Defiantly, or his daughter. Daddyos can get very protective of their little princesses :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Matt B said:


> I wonder who you think instigated the incident?


The Audi driver went through a red light. I think it's safe to say that's what started the whole thing.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Spandex said:


> Matt B said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder who you think instigated the incident?
> ...


Him going through into the box, while technically is going through a red light wasn't the reason the cyclist had a go at him. It was because he went into the cycle box. The cyclist then approached close and went all vigilante on him :lol: he then followed him down the street and dished out more abuse and had the cheek to complain he nearly ran overeat his foot, well if the moron had not moved a good 3 feet closer to his car he wouldn't have put his foot in danger.

None of the other cyclists bothered why did he have to wade in like some sort of gangsta. Serves him right :lol:

I know for a fact if someone started getting in my face like that I couldn't restrain myself, but then again I do a have bitch of a temper :roll:


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

John-H said:


> Interesting comment. Cyclists often think the traffic lights don't apply to them and sail through on red, trusting to their "better judgement" ........


 I certainly don't condone this whatsoever, but I understand why.

When the law doesn't prevent you from harm some people will flout it. Judging by the response to this thread and general ignorance to Rule 168 then I am not surprised many cyclists jump the lights early as on a bike your unrestricted spatial awareness is so much better especially since the NCAP rated front pillars arrived in the early nineties!

Either read up about Rule 178 and the stats on death at busy road junctions or stay out of the


Ignoramus said:


> 'sacred box'.


EDIT:- _See next post!_


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Skeee said:


> Either read up about Rule 168 and the stats on death at busy road junctions or.............


Well I googled it, this is what I got. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-t ... 162-to-169

"168

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you."

Don't see what relevance this has.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

What do people (and indeed the law) think of motorcycles filtering into the "cycle box" too ?

On the tax disc a motorbike is referred to as a "bicycle" ;-)


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

178!

Only ten rules out! 

http://road.cc/content/news/90316-polic ... s-ignoring

_
Homer Doh caption to follow in the edit!_


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting comment. Cyclists often think the traffic lights don't apply to them and sail through on red, trusting to their "better judgement" and if wrong, I surmise, expecting drivers to have the responsibility with the lights and avoid them - just as some of them do when cycling along with no lights, in dark conditions and clothing.
> ...


Well, I agree that cyclists are more vulnerable on the road in traffic and I always make a point of giving them a wide berth whilst overtaking. Straying over the line to get a head start (where there isn't a box) is one thing but ignoring lights completely and crossing junctions regardless is not good. Vulnerability was the perspective point I was making after the bit you quoted. To give perspective in the opposite direction; it's not just roads. As a pedestrian, I was once knocked flying by some idiot on a pushbike, riding on the pavement at high speed outside Woolworths on a busy high street. I was sent flying and so was he. At least at those speeds injuries are likely to be minor but I was relatively young and despite being disorientated I was Ok. My elderly aunt died after falling off a child's scooter she'd asked the children in her road to have a go of to show them how to do it and that was a simple fall she never recovered from. I don't think the cyclist considered my age when he crashed into me - he just thought he was the master of his environment.


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

The cyclist over reacted to the audi stopping within the cycle box, (could've just tutted and carried on with his day) then the audi passenger over reacted to the cyclist being abusive.

We all see violations from all road users, hopefully we have the self control from over reacting, hurling abuse, or taking physical action.

Lifes too shorts, let the others be idiots, and stay chilled.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

mullum said:


> What do people (and indeed the law) think of motorcycles filtering into the "cycle box" too ?
> 
> On the tax disc a motorbike is referred to as a "bicycle" ;-)


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

http://road.cc/content/news/90316-polic ... s-ignoring

Sixty quid for entering the box but only thirty if you go through a red light! Marvellous? 



mullum said:


> mullum said:
> 
> 
> > What do people (and indeed the law) think of motorcycles filtering into the "cycle box" too ?
> ...


 See ref above.


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

There was a case locally where a cyclist hit a young girl, got up and cycled off, without checking to see how badly injured the girl was.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/1 ... la_Crofts/


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

Well it's not often I risk posting my opinion on such things but I think that's not "right". I mean I believe motorbikes should be allowed in the box as several motorbikes can lead the traffic in the space of one car - and within the speed limit.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Skeee said:


> 178!
> 
> Only ten rules out!
> 
> ...


Reminds me of the recurring joke in red dwarf when rimmer quotes a rule like "Starfleet command 125 section D column 4" then kryten says something like, " a senior officer must not insert a gerbil into an orifice on a sunday, I fail to see the relevance to the use of the elevators" 

:lol:


----------



## XeNoN89 (Jan 19, 2014)

The driver was in the wrong initially for moving over the stop line into the cycle box, however after the cyclist had a word with him there that should have been the end of it, but instead the idiot cyclist then decides to aggressively chase after the driver with the soul purpose of causing a confrontation. Looks like he deserved the smack and maybe he won't try to intimidate and cause aggressive confrontation with drivers in the future.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

XeNoN89 said:


> The *idiot *driver was in the wrong *for contravening Rule 178!*





XeNoN89 said:


> ......................... *idiot cyclist then decides to aggressively chase after the driver *.............


 How does a cycle aggressively chase a car! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Assaulting someone physically was the greatest of the wrongs shown. If the cyclist pulled out a gun and shot the bloke who struck him you wouldn't say he deserved it, so nobody can say the cyclist deserved being struck - sorry - that's just picking sides rather than chosing to recognise the relative severity of each offence in the escallation and ownership of responsibility that should go with it. Thankfully we don't have guns here as some people seem unable to back off until they have nothing bigger to reach for :roll:


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

another self righteous cyclist ( of which there are plenty ) goes looking for trouble and got it from another arse hole bully in a big Audi ( of which there are plenty )


----------

