Have we done this yet?
It's a pretty nasty stretch of road and a known bottleneck. Not sure if he cyclist is telling the full story. There's two lanes of traffic there, bu the cyclist chooses to be in the outside lane when he/she could have been on the left and filtered at the merge point.
EDIT - The Jag and the cyclist are in the inside lane, but the cyclist seems to move out to the right on the green light.
Should I report him and what would the police do? It's odd the driver tried to knock me off 4 times, hit me twice, and kept shouting 'you're nicked' 'you're nicked'...When he succeeded in clipping me the second time he drove away from the scene. Bus driver and pedestrians very helpful. Still totally baffled why he kept driving his car at me. I had absolutely no confrontation with him, even managed to stop myself swearing at the first attempt.
I think the only thing he did wrong was go and sit in front of the jag after the arse sped off needlessly at the lights.
I don't understand your point about inside/outside lanes? Cyclist followed the car in front and jag was obviously going the same way.
Idiot being idiot shocker.
Don't have sound but would seem the rider is a c0ck bag looking for trouble and the driver isn't much better.
I don't understand your point about inside/outside lanes? Cyclist followed the car in front and jag was obviously going the same way.
I'm not excusing the driver. I'm saying the cyclist doesn't help themselves by moving to the right when the traffic lights turn green. The outside lane was empty and the car had space to move right. The junction swings from left to right giving the cyclist loads of room to follow the curve on the left.
I'd get in the middle of the lane there, but earlier in the queue where there was gap.
Regardless of where you stand on the relative cock-baginess of the folk in the video one of them driving round in 1.5te of metal hitting folk on purpose. If you can't control yourself not to use your car as weapon you shouldn't be on the road.
Can't see anything wrong with the riding there. The cyclist was very clear on signaling right while stationary.
Even if someone does something you don't like that doesn't give you the right to use a couple of tons of car as a weapon against them. The jag driver shouldn't be in control of anything more powerful than a blender.
Edit
The junction swings from left to right giving the cyclist loads of room to follow the curve on the left.
But if you do that you risk being cut up/squashed against the railings by drivers who get next to you and then drift back into lane 1 without getting past. I really don't see much wrong with the riding there.
Sure.
Drivers a cock
Cyclist antagonises him by pulling in front of him behind the bus
No winners here
Even if someone does something you don't like that doesn't give you the right to use a couple of tons of car as a weapon against them. The jag driver shouldn't be in control of anything more powerful than a blender.
Basically that.
yeah but either right at the front or at the back I'd say. Cutting in in the middle is going to put a driver's back up (whichever driver you "cut" in front of)I'd get in the middle of the lane there, but earlier in the queue where there was gap.
Sandwicheater, 2 narky people being narky at each other (all kicked off by the driver being a dick at the right turn), only the driver used their vehicle as a weapon tho so not sure how you got cyclist to be worse than driver.
Trouble-seeking cyclist is successful.
BINGO!Trouble-seeking cyclist is successful.
took longer than expected but someone finally rolled out the usual BS.
Well done shifter
and I believe the official term is "holier than thou helmet cam warrior"
in that situation, at the first lights, I would have filtered to the front of the queue, he clearly had time, and put myself in front of the front car and slightly over to the passenger seat area.
After that placing himself in front of the Jag later is a bit passive aggressive but I might have done the same OR passed the bus if i could.
in that situation, at the first lights, I would have filtered to the front of the queue, he clearly had time, and put myself in front of the front car and slightly over to the passenger seat area.
I think the problem was (and the thing the driver took offence too) was the fact the cyclist was using the chevroned area of road to undertake. That's probably why the cyclist hesitated in going all the way to the front and potentially what irritated Jag man, though he may just hate all cyclists.
He probably drives the same route the same time every day, revenge is a dish best served cold.
[i]I think the only thing he did wrong was go and sit in front of the jag after the arse sped off needlessly at the lights.[/i]
Kind of agree with this. Cyclist obviously annoyed that the Jag driver had beeped at him and squeezed past - then goes and sits in front as if to say "There, I'm in front now". If you want to SAY SOMETHING to the driver, go and SAY SOMETHING, not sit there tempting him to be even more of an aggressive prick than he was before.
Personally, in my experience there are two types of negative interactions with drivers.
The first is the one where the driver genuinely didn't see you. In that case, remonstrating with them hopefully makes them see the error of their ways.
The second is where the driver is blatantly aware of the cyclist but goes out of their way to make things dangerous. In these cases, arguing with them adds nothing. It's highly unlikely they'll see anything wrong with what they've done and they'll either escalate the current situation further or it just reinforces their hatred of cyclists even more and the next time they antagonise one, it could be even worse.
This isn't saying cyclists should be a victim, but I just question the logic of trying to reason with a lunatic piloting two tonnes of metal that is quite willing to put you in danger.
I don't understand the cyclist's positioning at the first junction nor the "looking for trouble" sitting in front of the jag at the next lights but none of that justifies what the driver did after that. I'd be visiting the local police if I were him. For the driver to be shouting "you're nicked" repeatedly at him, either he was hoping to intimate he was a police officer or he actually is one
either he was hoping to intimate he was a police officer or he actually is one
It may have been the frame rate on the camera, but the jags rear lights were doing something strange. Almost like an unmarked cars lights.
Drivers is a cock obviously. Why beep at the cyclist as he's turning?
But the cyclist has got annoyed and stuck himself in harms way. He's trying to "prove" something to the guy in the Jag. Having done it myself a couple of times, its never clever.
Your pissed off at someone driving like an arse and the red red mist descends. The adrenaline flows and you feel invicible - briefly. Then it escalates and you remember they are in a steel cage and you are a bag of flesh out in the open.
So the solution is to try and ignore cocks wherever possible. After all they will still be cocks whether you manage to "prove" something to the or not.
The reason why the cyclist doesn't stay left is because there are effectively two right turns here and he wants to go down the first one. If he stays left and the traffic wants to take the second right than he is in trouble. It is a tricky one, because no matter what you do you will end up having somebody cutting you up. Ideally you need an ASL for the bike to go into. I use this junction quite a bit, but only to go left & thinking about it I'm really not sure how I would handle it.
Re Boardin Bob's last comment about the Jag's lights - I think cyclist was using a flashing front light. You can see it on the bus number board at one point
That cyclist should learn how to ride a bike properly and not go out specifically to antagonise drivers. That whole thing was avoidable and its people like this that irritate the crap into me. At that first junction he could easily and should have, swung wider to make space and positively acknowledged the car. Everybody would have been happy.
The driver using his vehicle a as weapon is indeed not on but i watch these videos and wonder wtf cyclists think sometimes. And i ride my bike 7 days a week in Edinburgh on the roads.
Trouble-seeking cyclist is successful.
yeah this, can't hear it very well but sounds like he is narrating the conflict before it even started when he first pulls up next to the jag. Jag drivers are pretty much guaranteed to be cocks so not too surprising a response there. Also putting it on youtube before reporting to police is a bit odd and very theatrical.
I noticed he looks into each car as he undertakes the line of traffic - I've seen a guy in in Edinburgh who does this and wondering if it is the same guy. He undertakes queues of traffic peering into each car with his go pro on his helmet, some kind of weird warning/provocation behaviour.
Your pissed off at someone driving like an arse and the red red mist descends.
Sadly, I'd imagine on jagtrackworld.com they're having the same conversation about cyclists riding like arses and having the red mist descend
It may have been the frame rate on the camera, but the jags rear lights were doing something strange. Almost like an unmarked cars lights.
LED lights do that camera - something to do with rolling shutters and the frequency of the LED.
Silliness on both sides there, no need at all to block cars turning right, there was loads of space. If he felt the need, filter to the front and take primary in front of the lead car.
I think when he gets up to the bus he genuinely doesn't have the opportunity to pass- the bus is wide and as it starts moving almost immediately after he pulls in behind it I think the rider will have seen traffic ahead moving and judged it not suitable to pass. Whether it's deliberate that he passed the Jaguar or not is up for debate, but I suspect there is a small amount of the cyclist antagonising the driver and a large amount of the driver being especially nasty.
Of course he should report it, someone deliberately drove into him with a car. Provoked (which I don't think would legally stand up in this situation, it's hardly as if he's sat in front of the Jag for 6 miles flicking him the v's the whole way) or otherwise.
Simong- I would block cars turning right there, until I'm clear of the traffic island, because while there's room to pass in the junction there's not really once the right turn is completed. At least for a second or two, I know it's a dual carriage way but if there's a solid thing on the apex of the turn I'd not want anyone passing me.
yeah, don't really understand what he is doing sitting in behind the wing of the front car at the first lights. Seems like a poor position to be in if there's a bit of a dodgy road layout ahead - need to be up front surely.Silliness on both sides there, no need at all to block cars turning right, there was loads of space. If he felt the need, filter to the front and take primary in front of the lead car.
I wasn't watching with the sound on so didn't hear what's going on but it looks like two idiots banging heads
A cyclist that doesn't like drivers and a driver that doesn't like cyclists
I didn't really understand what was going on at the beginning on the video. Why was he riding so slowly and clocking every car he rode past?
At the first junction, I think he has fallen into the trap of being assertive, but not assertive enough. He 'blocks the traffic' because he knows some cars aren't turning into the road he wants to go into. He knows he can't swing wide because of the traffic which might be going straight on, he doesn't want to go in front of the first car for the same reason. I think he tries to get some empathy from the jag when he looks over his shoulder to indicate right, which clearly doesn't happen...
I've no idea why those chevrons are there BTW. It has always perplexed me.
I
I didn't really understand what was going on at the beginning on the video. Why was he riding so slowly and clocking every car he rode past?
Dunno. Checking that nobody is about to open a passenger door?
[i]I've no idea why those chevrons are there BTW.[/i]
On the red bit? Yeah, what the hell does that mean?!
cyclist go his just desserts.
why antagonise someone in a car just for the sake of it?
Jesus ton, that really is dumb. Do you really think he deserves someone driving at him with a car?
Jesus ton, that really is dumb. Do you really think he deserves someone driving at him with a car?
yes, for being a ****.
Could that guy ride any slower?
Car hits a cyclist then drives off?
Is that not called failing to stop at an accident??
I couldn't tell if he actually hit him or not
Car hits a cyclist then drives off?
Did he actually hit him though or did the cyclist just make a meal of it a la
first bit of clip, rider makes himself seen by letting the car drive know he wants to turn left. so instead of staying on the outside of the corner, he cuts across the corner, blocking the car, who is then rightly annoyed.
he procedes to follow the car to give the driver grief.
cyclists was at fault from the start.
first bit of clip, rider makes himself seen by letting the car drive know he wants to turn left. so instead of staying on the outside of the corner, he cuts across the corner, blocking the car, who is then rightly annoyed.
he procedes to follow the car to give the driver grief.
cyclists was at fault from the start.
the primary and second positions mean a car should always overtake you like a small vehicle and expect you to be out from the curb. The cyclist was re-adopting this position and his only error was not putting himself at the head of the queue to assert this position safely. Oh, and then actually expecting the driver to treat him as the vulnerable road user.
as for following... think he was just going the way he was going but should have thought more carefully about putting himself in front when they caught the bus.
Both parties weren't perfect but the Jag driver is in charge of a much more lethal weapon than the cyclist. Car drivers should have a duty of care to vulnerable road users.
ton
cyclists was at fault from the start.
Doesn't justify hitting him with a car though. Say someone stumbles, spills your pint so you have a disagreement about it. You just happen to be carrying a gun so you shoot him. Since you have the power, you only shoot him in the leg, to teach him a lesson. Is that okay?
I would report it as the escalation of the problem went beyond acceptable.
However in terms of who was to blame for escalation...
Cyclist - 8/10
Driver - 9/10
Did he actually hit him though or did the cyclist just make a meal of it a la
I wondered this too.
I think the cyclist caused that whole incident and made a meal out of the falling off the bike part.
If you are wearing a go pro on your commute, this will happen.
He shouldn't have gone up the inside of the Jag in the first place;
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
Laws MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9, 10 & 16, MT(S)R regs 4, 8, 9 & 14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)
I think we should see what mumsnet thinks - they seem more inclined to think cyclists have a right to be on the road than people on this forum.
[quote=euans2 ]I think the cyclist caused that whole incident and made a meal out of the falling off the bike part.
Yeah, nothing at all to do with the innocent Jaguar driver aiming his car at him several times 🙄 I mean the cyclist should really have been able to ride it out when he eventually made contact.
[quote=irelanst ]He shouldn't have gone up the inside of the Jag in the first place;
Not even when there was space between the Jag and the chevrons? It's pretty much impossible to tell from the video, but I reckon it's quite likely he never did enter the chevron area. It looks a lot like he stops behind the front car because there is no longer space for him to pass without entering that area.
cyclist shouldnt have been on the chevrons, illegal place to be. He then expects to get treated 'as a vehicle' when pulling out from them. Daft arrogant rider and short fused driver - never going to work out 🙁
[i]shouldnt have been on the chevrons, illegal place to be[/i]
I've not bothered with the video but what was the outline;
[i]Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.[/i]
it is difficult to tell from the footage whether it is the cyclist swerving towards the car as he turns his head or the car turning towards him. When the driver is shouting at the cyclist the gap closes but the drivers hands do not move the steering wheel. The cyclist was in the wrong position to turn right at the junction to start with. really unclear as to whether the car and cyclist actually touched. Cyclist needs to put it down to experience and learn a lesson. driver needs to remember he will always win in a collision so just let it go. 2 c0cks brought together by circumstance.
I think we should see what mumsnet thinks - they seem more inclined to think cyclists have a right to be on the road than people on this forum.
I don't think that's the case. In this video in answer to the Youtube posters question, yes the driver should be reported as the behavior and intimidation isn't acceptable. In the real world though this is one of the most congested and dangerous roads for cyclists coming into the north west of the city and cyclists are very vulnerable due to two lanes of often speeding traffic then a bottleneck where it goes down to one lane where this video is shot. The cyclists positioning and aggressiveness doesn't help the situation.
In an ideal world cyclists should be able to get into and out of the city without worrying about any of the above and the facilities for cycling into and out of Edinburgh are pretty shocking. I do feel that a lot of the sensationalist youtube videos (not saying this is one) where the cyclist is constantly on the lookout for anyone breaking the 3 feet boundary and screaming and swearing at anyone who does, doesn't help our case.
[quote=wwaswas ]
I've not bothered with the video but what was the outline;
Solid
The driver should be reported.
However the cyclist was being deliberately antagonistic after the first pass. That doesn't mean he deserves to be knocked over mind.
[quote=MrGrim ]I don't think that's the case. In this video in answer to the Youtube posters question, yes the driver should be reported as the behavior and intimidation isn't acceptable. In the real world though this is one of the most congested and dangerous roads for cyclists coming into the north west of the city and cyclists are very vulnerable due to two lanes of often speeding traffic then a bottleneck where it goes down to one lane where this video is shot. The cyclists positioning and aggressiveness doesn't help the situation.
Did you read the recent mumsnet thread? Far, far more sympathetic to cyclists using the road and being assertive in their use of it to maintain their safety than any thread on here - this one being a good example. In the real world, it is still an offence to drive your car at a cyclist even if the cyclist is a complete arse - which I don't believe this cyclist is. The road might be dangerous, but the driver doesn't knock him off because of that, the driver knocks him off because he uses his car as a weapon and deliberately aims it at the cyclist. The cyclist certainly wasn't perfect - personally I think I'd have hung further back in the queue at the first junction, but then I can understand why he might think it safer not to do so. However that is no excuse whatsoever for the driver's behaviour. If ton isn't trolling up there, then personally I find that a completely disgusting attitude.
Cyclists do have a right to be on the roads, they do have a right to ride assertively. A lot of the complaints against the cyclist behaviour on this and other similar threads are related to them not getting out of the way of the cars - an attitude which was very much in the minority on the mumsnet thread, and pointed out to be incorrect by the majority. I wasn't being ironic at all in pointing out the differences in attitude between mumsnet and here.
Cyclists do have a right to be on the roads, they do have a right to ride assertively.
Assertively yes, but not in a manner designed to cause aggravation. The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic. Nobody here is going to say that he deserved knocking off but he also needs to think about his part in things.
[quote=atlaz ]Assertively yes, but not in a manner designed to cause aggravation. The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic.
So what should the penalty be for riding in a manner designed to cause aggravation? £30 fine? Get knocked off by a car?
Not that I believe he did - presumably you're referring to when he pulled in behind the bus as there wasn't space between the bus and the traffic island and he could see the traffic was moving off? That quite clearly wasn't antagonistic.
Nobody here is going to say that he deserved knocking off but he also needs to think about his part in things.
Exactly what part did he play in the car driving into him? If you're not saying he deserved to be knocked off, what should his punishment be?
If it was me I'd have been in front of the indicating Audi and gone on the M of amber.
Fastest way to work is to not get involved with shit like in the video.
Both prats, driver is dangerous with it though.
Did he actually knock him off?*
If the cyclist was concentrating on what he was doing rather than looking behind making the situation worse he could have stayed upright. He's looking for trouble and found it, not big or clever.*
Whats with looking into the front of each car he passes too, doing it too late to be checking for passengers opening doors on him...
*not in any way condoning drivers actions, just questioning the result before the militant section start.
[quote=jamesfts ]Both prats, driver is dangerous with it though.
Did he actually knock him off?*
Well he hit him with his car. The outcome is fairly irrelevant.
I'm still not sure in what was the cyclist is a prat, goes looking for trouble or his actions are in any way at all comparable with that of the driver. Nor that it is militant to suggest cyclists have a right to be on the roads and not be assaulted.
Dear me racer - that was the most antagonistic bit! He could easily have gone past the bus on either side. He would've then been long gone by the time the bus stopped at the bus stop.
On a lighter note - is that James Robertson Justice driving the bus?
g5604 - Member
If you are wearing a go pro on your commute, this will happen.
Yay! There he is!
[quote=shifter ]He could easily have gone past the bus on either side.
Small gaps, bus about to move (it's already moving off by the time he looks forwards a second after pulling into the gap). No thanks. Though it does neatly illustrate the point that just being on the road getting in the way of a car is seen as antagonistic.
Well he hit him with his car. The outcome is fairly irrelevant.
Genuine question, from the video I couldn't tell if they touched, got rammed or if he just fell over.
They actions aren't comparable but the cyclist had the opportunity to completely avoid the situation but went chasing after a driver who was evidently a ****t from their previous actions.
[quote=jamesfts ]the cyclist had the opportunity to completely avoid the situation but went chasing after a driver who was evidently a ****t from their previous actions.
Eh? From what I could work out the cyclist was trying to get somewhere on a commute. The fact the Jaguar driver happened to be in front of him was totally irrelevant. What was he supposed to do, go a different way? I presume this is related to the idea that overtaking a queue of traffic is a deliberate attempt to aggravate drivers.
Interestingly it seems to be the driver who then went a different way after the incident - where does the side road he nipped down go?
I don't understand what you don't get.
If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place.
The same would be sensible regardless of cycling or driving, let the idiot passed so they can have their accident/road rage whatever they're intent on doing further down the road and not with you.
Cyclist was a cock from the off.
Fails to overtake the Jag properly.
Fails to understand that indicating does not give you automatic right of way.
Deliberately positions himself infront of the driver he's had an altercation with.
If I was unhappy with a driver's driving the last thing I would do is position myself directly in front of them!
The first corner, fair enough but I don't think positioning himself in front of the Jag was anything other than antagonistic
Judging from the cyclist's talking he was already trying to start something with the jag from the first corner.
[i]If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place[/i]
But he needed footage for his video!
(I don't think this, but sarcasm is hard to convey)
[quote=jamesfts ]If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day
Slowed down briefly at what point? The trouble is the Jag was stuck in a queue of traffic rather than going about his day, so rather hard for the cyclist to avoid catching him up.
[quote=sbob ]Fails to overtake the Jag properly.
When and how?
Fails to understand that indicating does not give you automatic right of way.
No, but being in front does.
[quote=bigjim ]Judging from the cyclist's talking he was already trying to start something with the jag from the first corner.
Oh I give up. You lot have all clearly been brainwashed by the idea that cyclists must get out of the way of cars. I'm off to mumsnet to find more sensible discussion.
Do people on here not ride bikes?
"If the cyclist had just briefly slowed down to let the prat in the Jag go about his day it'd all have been avoided. He might added 30 seconds to his journey but it'd be better than having the altercation in the 1st place. "
He is on a bike in traffic he is always going to catch the car up no matter if he waits 2 minutes . the video shows that even given the big gap after the lights and riding slowly he still catches the Jag. The fact that cars are slower than bikes probably explains why the Jag driver chose to run away down a side street after the hit and run.
[quote=crankboy ]Do people on here not ride bikes?
I suggest mumsnet if you want to talk to people who do.
Just made a detour to have another look at the junction. While I accept the law about solid line chevrons. I will repeat I do not have the foggiest idea why they are there. They do not seem to perform any useful function at all. This is one of the very few junctions where I would condone law breaking. If I had to use it regularly I would roll across the red stop line and treat it as an informal ASL. Not ideal, but I don't see any other solution. The problem you have is if you take the corner wide you risk cars going straight on taking you out. If you take a primary position going around the corner, there is a real risk of knobs going to the left around the outside. It doesn't matter whether you filter or sit in the traffic, it is just as likely to happen, especially as this is a short phase light that encourages aggression from drivers being held up by a bike ahead of them.TBH if that was on my commute I would probably avoid altogether and go straight on where our boy turns left initially. It leads to a back road T junction joining the same bit of d/c, although I accept that means trying to get onto the Queensferry Road without he benefit of a traffic light.
What has riding bikes got to do with anything?
Slowed down/sped up/whatever, he could have avoided the situation he got him self into. I'm not blaming him for the actions of the Jag driver, just saying it was avoidable.
There was no need for him to cut in front of the Jag but he did it anyway putting him self in a dangerous place with a driver who has already shown himself to be aggressive and have a problem with the cyclist.
[quote=jamesfts ]There was no need for him to cut in front of the Jag but he did it anyway
No he didn't. He pulled back into the queue behind the bus. I'm sure if there had been another car in front of the Jag he'd have pulled in front of that - I don't think he even thought about the car when he pulled into the queue there, so didn't realise there was likely to be an issue.
But I don't think those who think the cyclist was just out to cause trouble will ever be able to see that.
Worst piece of road positioning ever seen by the cyclist, not just once. Complete waste of police time reporting that motorist. Put money on this guy having history.
[quote=eat_more_cheese ]Complete waste of police time reporting that motorist. Put money on this guy having history.
Waste of police time? So you don't think they should do anything to him even if he does have history?
Everyone keeps saying the Jag driver drove at him, knocked him off, hit him etc.
I didn't see any contact whatsoever in the video.
Looked like he fell off to me. No contact from the car at all.
No he didn't ... I'm sure ... I don't think …
He [b]could[/b] have hung back a bit or got passed the bus and out of harms way but didn't.
I'm not saying he was out to cause trouble he just could have avoided it but for whatever reason decided not to.
