Cycling UK Forum

stewartpratt wrote:You're very calm about it. I'd be livid.

Seriously, you're just going to accept being forced to change wheels, on a frame that's potentially asymmetric?

Unless the frame was asymmetric before it went in (i.e. the first repair was done badly) and it may have given an appearance os 130 mm spacing. Doesn't seem to be the case from the OP's post though.

I considered frame bags when changing my touring set up earlier this year, but in the end settled for a Gorilla cage which allows me to attach the tent on top of the down tube. I used it alongside two small Ortlieb panniers up front, a Super C saddle bag, and a small Alpkit top tube bag this summer - it worked out well. Getting the Gorilla thingy was way cheaper than a frame bag, at about £20. Plus, everything is easy to access and I still have two bottle cages. I love how the bike handles without rear panniers and I seem to be riding faster too, though cannot make a direct comparison.

irc wrote:

kuba wrote:

irc wrote:I've had people attempt something similar with no provocation.

Interesting, nothing similar ever happened to me and I cycle thousands of miles each year. So I guess it must have something to do with the way you behave on the road.

As every time was on quiet roads around midnight at a weekend I'd suggest the common factor was alcohol but I wasn't stopping to breathalyse them. And every case was on the same stretch of road through one part of the city, maybe 10% of my commute. The same area where a district nurse riding to work got a broken arm when she was shoved to the ground in a random attack. Also late at night.

My comment was just to highlight the inappropriateness of 'what the cyclist should have done differently' discussion. Everyone makes errors when they ride or drive, and we can always do things differently and probably better. But there's just one side to blame in this case and, irony aside, I have no reason to doubt it was similar in your experience.

irc wrote:I've had people attempt something similar with no provocation.

Interesting, nothing similar ever happened to me and I cycle thousands of miles each year. So I guess it must have something to do with the way you behave on the road.

SA_SA_SA wrote:if safe to do so, they can legally cross when it is showing.

Sure, but that's hardly the case in the discussed video.

Yes it it true the HC states cyclists should wear helmets, and she seems to wear one. Not sure what your point is here.

As for rule 147 well, if you're on a highway then all HC rules are of relevance and apply to everyone equally so again fail to see your point.

kwackers wrote:Firstly the 'red man' is a 'red herring'. Pedestrians are under no obligation to wait for the red man, might be advisable and in this case he most certainly should have waited - but he didn't.

Presume you mean "wait for the green man" otherwise it makes no sense? If so, rule 21 states "At traffic lights. There may be special signals for pedestrians. You should only start to cross the road when the green figure shows." We'll probably never agree, but just for the record.

So the only red herring here is the discussion of the cyclist's behaviour, it's irrelevant and also really inappropriate.Interesting gender dynamics though.

Vorpal wrote:I know that a pedestrian has no obligation to stop for a red man. Although conventions like that are what makes things easier for everyone, he certainly has the right to walk out into traffic, and that's exactly what he does.

I agree with almost everything you say but multiple HC rules state otherwise. You should definitely not walk into traffic but wait for a gap big enough to cross, and wait for the green if applicable. But otherwise you're bang on right, and the only person who could have acted to avoid the assault was its perpetrator.

kwackers wrote:TBH I find the entire cyclists whining about being badly done to on the roads and then going out and doing exactly the same themselves just a little grating.

Me too, but not sure why you even say it in this thread other than to blame, or at best discredit, the victim of a violent crime. I won't even comment on her having done "exactly the same" as you're clearly seeing things that I'm not.

kwackers wrote:Which proves nothing other than she was confident the video showed she did nothing wrong otherwise she wouldn't have handed it in - so why does that prove my point wrong? Nobody hands over video footage that is self incriminating.

Neither did she. She reported an assault and handed over the footage, that's all we know. The rest is all speculation and also victim-blaming, and the facts you got wrong are up this thread. And pls stop citing HC rules I said nothing about like I don't know them.

Psamathe wrote:But it does make one wonder what they have been doing to find the guy since May.

Reasons may have been cynical like you say, though in quite a few recent cases of sexual assaults I recall CCTV footage was only released months after the incident with the same explanation. If it was me I'd be in two minds whether to agree for the footage to go public, given it earns you all sorts of comments about your cycling abilities etc., even on a forum like this.

kwackers wrote:The point still stands. She was confident enough to hand it in to the police, therefore she was confident she did no wrong.

Yes I can see that your points stand whatever the facts, which you got wrong on both counts (no, she did not publish the footage but instead made a criminal complaint so speculations about about her self-righteousness are neither here nor there; and yes, close passes are against the Highway Code in principle, whatever the particulars which I'm well aware of). Oh well.

reohn2 wrote:I tend to ask myself if this sort of thing happens much or at all in other European countries?

Depends which country I guess, there's more of that in some countries and less in others. In my experience a strong sense of individualism and a lack of thinking in social terms in countries like the UK or Poland contribute to roads feeling more dangerous than they are in, say France whether there seems to be more empathy to other road users. Even in the UK I notice the difference between Scotland and England, but up north they're way less congested and that certainly plays a role too.

kwackers wrote:It's based on the fact they chose to publish the video.

Except she didn't choose to publish it. The Met did, and only to identify the perpetrator. Get your facts straight, otherwise this discussion makes little sense.

kwackers wrote:Close overtakes aren't actually forbidden by the highway code

Rule 163: "Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should: a/ not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake..." And so on. There's even a picture...

kwackers wrote:Sounds exactly like the response you get from motorists

Yep, just like victim-blaiming. Now can you answer my questions?

P.S. Unlike crossing a junction on a green light, close overtakes are not allowed by the Highway Code. The parallel you're trying to make is bizarre.

kwackers wrote:The very first thing the highway code says is you have to avoid accidents, not that you should insist on your 'right of way'. Avoiding accidents in this instance means allowing someone on the carriageway to vacate it even if it means slowing slightly.

Did she fail to avoid an accident? The only 'accident' in the video is her being pushed onto the road.

kwackers wrote:If I were that cyclist tbh once I'd calmed down I'd have put it down to experience and binned the video but I suspect they think their cycling is above reproach.

And what is that suspicion based on?

I don't think there's much of a paradox here. Discussions about preventing road rage are all fine, just like discussions about best methods of preventing bike theft: locking up bikes? thieves? reducing inequalities that breed crime? all above? etc. They only become problematic when held in the context of a particular crime and a particular victim, because they replace the question of of what can be done with what the victim could have done. And that's unfair.

Bicycler wrote:No it isn't it's a separate discussion. I went to some length to point out that the blame remained his and only his. That is not to say that there aren't ways in which we can reduce opportunities for unnecessary conflict. Far too often we see incidents like this which would not have happened if people were just that bit less confrontational.

Saying that we should avoid unnecessary conflict is stating the obvious, isn't it? But the problem with stating it in this context is that it helps perpetrators feel vindicated and victims feel guilty. You say she's not to blame, but then suggest she - or a hypothetical someone in an incident like this - could be 'that bit less confrontational'. I don't get it. This video doesn't show unnecessary conflict, it shows an assault.