When the police give an assaulted cyclist a warning

[irc]

So what would I have done? I would have just stayed in primary behaving like a vehicle - not attempting to undertake or overtake at any point and also preventing anyone from overtaking or close passing me. Other option would be to dismount and walk on the pavement on the other side.

Would you honestly have sat in the queue, breathing exhaust for 10 minutes? And give up one of the advantages of commuting by bicycle?

IMO filtering is when a cyclist moves steadily past a queue of traffic. In this case there was nowhere to go once past that first car as the road is too narrow unless a car is on the centre line. The traffic was still moving. I would have sat back and waited until nearer the roundabout before passing.

I know the road well (3 miles from me) the cyclist would have had to wait 30s or a minute at most until the roundabout. Thereafter the traffic would be freeflowing at 30-40mph whichever route he took.

Incidentally the road width there can be irritating to drivers as it is too narrow to overtake cyclist when there is oncoming traffic. So at rush hour cars can be down to 15mph - 18mph for miles at a time behind a bike. The usual speed is 30-45mph at peak times. I used to use that rouad on a (non cycling) commute as it was free flowing. I have seen 40 or 50 cars behind one cyclist for miles.

From the drivers verbals I suspect he is a local who has been held up on several occasions by cyclists and didn't want the cyclist to get through the roundabout before him as this could mean another mile or two at cycling speed.

All of which does not excuse his behaviour in the least.

[robing]

If you watch his YouTube channel you will see he clearly has an agenda. Every video has the same hysterical shrieking and swearing. He also cycles between lanes of traffic with hardly any room at speeds I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with - he calls it filtering.

[Jdsk]

It's not filtering because there isn't an extra lane - it's still single lane.

I think that filtering is also used for passing when there isn't another lane.

Jonathan

[robing]

It's not filtering because there isn't an extra lane - it's still single lane.

I think that filtering is also used for passing when there isn't another lane.

Jonathan

Well whatever, he does cycle at eye watering speeds through narrow gaps in the traffic - somewhat ironic given how much he complains about close passes. I'll say one thing - the road conditions he cycles on are very unpleasant (I do know that part of the world) and if that was my daily commute I'd find an alternative means of getting there.

[slowster]

If you watch his YouTube channel you will see he clearly has an agenda. Every video has the same hysterical shrieking and swearing. He also cycles between lanes of traffic with hardly any room at speeds I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with - he calls it filtering.

I cannot be bothered to watch any of his other videos, but this does not surprise me. His roadcraft is poor and he exhibits the same aggressive attitude and behaviour as a typical MGIF car driver. He and the Audi driver are cut from the same cloth.

when his precious Audi is touched by the genuinely frightened cyclist in fear of injury.

In that situation I would not take my hands from the bars and hoods: I would be too focused on steering the bike and keeping in control. I don't think he hit the car out of fear, but rather that he lashed out in anger. He and the driver are two sides of the same coin, the only differences being that a) the driver crossed a red line in commtting an assault which is something that must be punished by the law to act as a deterrent regardless of any provocation, which is why CUK is right to get involved, and b) as a vulnerable road user the person most likely to be injured by his poor roadcraft and aggressive attitude is himself.

[irc]

It's not filtering because there isn't an extra lane - it's still single lane.

I think that filtering is also used for passing when there isn't another lane.

Jonathan

Well whatever, he does cycle at eye watering speeds through narrow gaps in the traffic - somewhat ironic given how much he complains about close passes. I'll say one thing - the road conditions he cycles on are very unpleasant (I do know that part of the world) and if that was my daily commute I'd find an alternative means of getting there.

I used to bike commute on that road. Certain times of day I would take a longer alt going from 9 miles to 11 or 12 to avoid it.

[thirdcrank]

If you watch his YouTube channel you will see he clearly has an agenda. Every video has the same hysterical shrieking and swearing. He also cycles between lanes of traffic with hardly any room at speeds I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with - he calls it filtering.

I cannot be bothered to watch any of his other videos, but this does not surprise me. His roadcraft is poor and he exhibits the same aggressive attitude and behaviour as a typical MGIF car driver. He and the Audi driver are cut from the same cloth.

when his precious Audi is touched by the genuinely frightened cyclist in fear of injury.

In that situation I would not take my hands from the bars and hoods: I would be too focused on steering the bike and keeping in control. I don't think he hit the car out of fear, but rather that he lashed out in anger. He and the driver are two sides of the same coin, the only differences being that a) the driver crossed a red line in commtting an assault which is something that must be punished by the law to act as a deterrent regardless of any provocation, which is why CUK is right to get involved, and b) as a vulnerable road user the person most likely to be injured by his poor roadcraft and aggressive attitude is himself.

Are you saying that dealing with the driver by way of some sort of caution was ipso facto wrong? If not, then IMO there's no point in cUK getting involved in that specific aspect of this. ie Although he was not punished in the sense of the imposition of a penalty, the allegation was investigated with a formal disposal.

If robing's comment about "the same hysterical shrieking and swearing" is correct, then it hardly seems the best brand to use in the laudable policy of getting a better deal for vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists.

[Oldjohnw]

This guy may occasionally have right on his side but he is an aggressive trouble maker. He accuses cars if not giving him s wide birth then squeezes through gaps with inches to spare.

I have no time for him.

[slowster]

Are you saying that dealing with the driver by way of some sort of caution was ipso facto wrong? If not, then IMO there's no point in cUK getting involved in that specific aspect of this. ie Although he was not punished in the sense of the imposition of a penalty, the allegation was investigated with a formal disposal.

If robing's comment about "the same hysterical shrieking and swearing" is correct, then it hardly seems the best brand to use in the laudable policy of getting a better deal for vulnerable road users, particularly cyclists.

I think that almost whatever the circumstances, provocation and blame on either side that might lead up to an assault, if an assault is committed that needs to be punished very firmly to act a deterrent. The message needs to be driven home to all road users that no matter how inconsiderate, poor or enervating another road user's driving or cycling might be, physical assaults will not be tolerated. I'm not wholly convinced that a caution or similar is a sufficient deterrent, but would be happy to learn of evidence that such cautions are an effective deterrent.

As for whether poor behaviour of the cyclist makes it inappropriate for CUK take up the case, I think it's a very good case for exactly that reason. It's important that all cyclists and other vulnerable road users are treated equally and protected by the law, and the fact that the cyclist in this case appears to me to be an aggressive jerk should not make a difference to CUK's decision.

That said, as I said above, if this is typical of the cyclist's behaviour as shown by his other videos, and if he is earning money from those Youtube videos, in CUK's position I would be concerned that he was financially motivated to seek out such confrontations on the road, and to ride more recklessly/agressively. If so, I would consider refusing to renew his membership once this case had been settled.

[reohn2]

This guy may occasionally have right on his side but he is an aggressive trouble maker. He accuses cars if not giving him s wide birth then squeezes through gaps with inches to spare.

I have no time for him.

I was making a judgement on the incident as I saw it in the video,not any other criteria.
The car driver was an aggressive lout who sought violence as a first resort,first with his vehicle and second with his fists.

There is a huge difference in a cyclist riding through a gap wide enough to fit between two cars or a car and another obstacle and a car driving through a gap just wide enough to fit between a cyclist and another obstacle.The first isn't dangerous the second most certainly is.

[slowster]

The car driver was an aggressive lout who sought violence as a first resort,first with his vehicle

I agree the driver is a violent thug, but I am not convinced that he deliberately drove into the cyclist. Maybe he did, but I don't think the video provides good evidence of that.

Watching the video at that point what struck me was that, having ridden past the car on the inside, the cyclist starts to move back towards primary position without looking behind him (and I doubt that he gave any indication or signal of his intention to move across the road into primary).

I think it's very possible, maybe even likely, that at the point the cyclist passed him on the inside and at the same time the traffic in front started to move, the driver assumed that the cyclist was going to keep left and simply started to move forward himself, i.e. he did not turn towards the cyclist and collide with him - instead the cyclist turned towards him and collided with the car.

Similarly I think it's possible that the driver did not realise before it was too late that the cyclist was moving into the path of his car. If you are travelling in a straight line and someone directly ahead of you moves left or right, it is very easy to spot immediately. If a cyclist is well over to one side and you are also concentrating heavily on the car in front, it may not be easily noticeable until it is too late that the cyclist is moving to the right.

[thirdcrank]

...I think that almost whatever the circumstances, provocation and blame on either side that might lead up to an assault, if an assault is committed that needs to be punished very firmly to act a deterrent. The message needs to be driven home to all road users that no matter how inconsiderate, poor or enervating another road user's driving or cycling might be, physical assaults will not be tolerated. I'm not wholly convinced that a caution or similar is a sufficient deterrent, but would be happy to learn of evidence that such cautions are an effective deterrent.

As for whether poor behaviour of the cyclist makes it inappropriate for CUK take up the case, I think it's a very good case for exactly that reason. It's important that all cyclists and other vulnerable road users are treated equally and protected by the law, and the fact that the cyclist in this case appears to me to be an aggressive jerk should not make a difference to CUK's decision.

That said, as I said above, if this is typical of the cyclist's behaviour as shown by his other videos, and if he is earning money from those Youtube videos, in CUK's position I would be concerned that he was financially motivated to seek out such confrontations on the road, and to ride more recklessly/agressively. If so, I would consider refusing to renew his membership once this case had been settled.

Re cautions for offending: Increased use of cautions and other alternatives to court proceedings has been the policy of every government for at least the last 50 years. It may be longer, but that's the extent of my personal experience. As I think I may have mentioned above, governments have been equivocal over this, eg blaming the police for "slap on the wrist" cautions; "Failing" Grayling even claimed to be getting tough when he introduced disposals which were weaker than cautions.

Re cUK backing using this case for campaigning: this is a democracy. ie You have to take public opinion with you. That's not going to be easy and IMO, highlighting this case would be likely to make it harder. That's assuming anybody beyond internet forums took the slightest interest.

For the future, I presume the cameraman in this case will indulge in more of the same, knowing he has the support of the self-styled Cyclists' Champion. cUK will find it increasingly harder to to disassociate itself.

[reohn2]

In that situation I would not take my hands from the bars and hoods: I would be too focused on steering the bike and keeping in control. I don't think he hit the car out of fear, but rather that he lashed out in anger.

We'll have to differ on that point as I,having been in similar situations on a few occasions have found a slap of the hand on the vehicle generally makes the driver stop or steer away from me,whether their poor and dangerous driving, is intentional or not and on occassion I've been in no doubt their dangerous driving has been intentional.
On the couple of occassions when the driver has stopped and got shirty about his precious car rather than my health,I've been prepared to defend myself,on one occassion hitting one driver with the bike in self defence.

He and the driver are two sides of the same coin, the only differences being that a) the driver crossed a red line in commtting an assault which is something that must be punished by the law to act as a deterrent regardless of any provocation, which is why CUK is right to get involved, and b) as a vulnerable road user the person most likely to be injured by his poor roadcraft and aggressive attitude is himself.

I reserve the right to self defence in situations where I've been threatened with physical violence in whichever way it saves me from injury,and as such I disagree totally with your assessment of the situation the cyclist found himself in.

........Let's say you're walking down a gap between two houses and a car approaches from behind you.
As it draws level you realise the gap between wall and car is becoming narrower due to the driver steering toward you.You shout to the driver no avail,but you've nowhere to go and you fear being crushed between wall opand car.
Would you bang on the the car at that point to draw the driver's attention to the danger you're in,or risk the very real chance of injury?
The cyclist's situation in the video is no different in that there was a very real chance he could have been knocked off,IMHO that was the driver's intention,I know because I've been there when vehicles have overtaken me very closely or deliberately and unprovoked driven toward me narrowing the gap between car and kerb.
IME there are some drivers on the road with very seriously bad bullying attitudes toward cyclists,the barsteward driver in the video was one such and the cyclist did nothing wrong to provoke such a response.

YVMV,mine,due to long term high cycle mileage experience,won't.

[reohn2]

The car driver was an aggressive lout who sought violence as a first resort,first with his vehicle

I agree the driver is a violent thug, but I am not convinced that he deliberately drove into the cyclist. Maybe he did, but I don't think the video provides good evidence of that.

Watching the video at that point what struck me was that, having ridden past the car on the inside, the cyclist starts to move back towards primary position without looking behind him (and I doubt that he gave any indication or signal of his intention to move across the road into primary).

I think it's very possible, maybe even likely, that at the point the cyclist passed him on the inside and at the same time the traffic in front started to move, the driver assumed that the cyclist was going to keep left and simply started to move forward himself, i.e. he did not turn towards the cyclist and collide with him - instead the cyclist turned towards him and collided with the car.

Similarly I think it's possible that the driver did not realise before it was too late that the cyclist was moving into the path of his car. If you are travelling in a straight line and someone directly ahead of you moves left or right, it is very easy to spot immediately. If a cyclist is well over to one side and you are also concentrating heavily on the car in front, it may not be easily noticeable until it is too late that the cyclist is moving to the right.

You give the driver's actions too much credence.IMHO that's 2 tonnes of very powerful vehicle who's driver is bullying 90kgs max,of rider and bike with the sole intention of intimidation,and is par for the course for the aggressive driving attitude all too prevalent in the UK today.

Anyway I've posted my opinion,so I'll leave it at that.

[slowster]

Let's say you're walking down a gap between two houses and a car approaches from behind you.
As it draws level you realise the gap between wall and car is becoming narrower due to the driver steering toward you.You shout to the driver no avail,but you've nowhere to go and you fear being crushed between wall opand car.
Would you bang on the the car at that point to draw the driver's attention to the danger you're in,or risk the very real chance of injury?
The cyclist's situation in the video is no different in that there was a very real chance he could have been knocked off

The cyclist's situation was very different, because there was no wall - if anything the tarmac to the left and the verge beyond were a place of safety.

In that situation I would not take my hands from the bars and hoods because my overriding concern would be to keep control of the bike and my balance and to steer away from the car. There is absolutely no way I would hit the car in that situation. I've been behind cyclists who have done that, and it has always been done in anger and to lash out.

IMHO that was the driver's intention,I know because I've been there when vehicles have overtaken me very closely or deliberately and unprovoked driven toward me narrowing the gap between car and kerb.
IME there are some drivers on the road with very seriously bad bullying attitudes toward cyclists,the barsteward driver in the video was one such and the cyclist did nothing wrong to provoke such a response.

I think there is a strong temptation in cases like this to ascribe motivations and intent to the cyclist and driver based more on our own experiences and beliefs than the available evidence supports.