[Closed] Edinburgh Cyclist and Jaguar

aracer - Member

When and how?

The cyclist pulls left out of the minor road and starts overtaking the line of cars.
He fails to do this properly as there isn't enough room to get in front of the Jag due to the car in front, and there isn't enough room to get in front of the first car due to the stop line.

No, but being in front does.

He doesn't get in front of the Jag, there isn't room.
He stops on the chevrons and then uses an indication to try and force his way in front of the Jag.
Like most bellends on the road, the cyclist's impatience is his downfall.
He went for an overtake that wasn't on and left himself in a position he shouldn't have been in.
He never established himself in the lane.
He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.
Notice how the red car is observing the "keep clear" road markings?
This means he's either broken down in a coincidental location, or he is actually obeying road signs.
This is a good indication that the driver might not actually be a massive cock, and might provide an opportunity to safely pull out.

Unlike the driver of the Jag, who, thanks to the insight of bigjim, is pretty much guaranteed to be a cock.

Oh I give up. You lot have all clearly been brainwashed by the idea that cyclists must get out of the way of cars

That's not what happened.
This isn't about why the cyclist had to get out the way of the car.
This is about a shit cyclist who deliberately chose to put himself in danger by incorrectly deciding he had priority and trying to force cars to get out of his way, when it wasn't his.

[quote=jamesfts ]He could have hung back a bit or got passed the bus and out of harms way but didn't.

A pretty decent explanation of why he didn't pass the bus has already been given. Of course the car two back could have been a homicidal maniac with a gun and he might be still alive because he didn't pull in front of it, but he has no way of knowing that any more than he can tell that the Jag driver will drive at him. when he pulls into the queue in front of him. The cyclists behaviour is perfectly normal for pulling into a queue of traffic - the only reason people are seeing him being antagonistic is because that's what they're looking for. Of course he would have been better off not to pull into the queue there, but it wasn't a conscious decision to go looking for trouble, his only mistake was not realising the Jag driver was an idiot.

[quote=sbob ]He doesn't get in front of the Jag, there isn't room.

Well is he in front of the Jag or behind it?

He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.

Behind which red car?

That's not what happened.
This isn't about why the cyclist had to get out the way of the car.
This is about a shit cyclist who deliberately chose to put himself in danger by incorrectly deciding he had priority and trying to force cars to get out of his way, when it wasn't his.

The incident happened half a mile up the road from where you're suggesting he put himself in the wrong road position. The only connection is the driver with rage, who decided the cyclist is in his way because he's in front. I'm not sure I'd have taken that road position at the first junction, but that is completely irrelevant to the later incident. Unless of course you're suggesting it was reasonable for the Jag driver to aim his car at the cyclist because the cyclist got it wrong earlier?

geoffj - Member
Could that guy ride any slower?

Lol. There did seem to be some frenetic activity going on below the gaze of the camera so I'm guessing he was spinning like crazy on a single-speed bike with inappropriate gearing...

Looks like the cyclist took a footballer style dive for the purpose of his video 😉

He would have been better establishing himself when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car.

Doesn't make any difference to the risk posed by the junction.
I think this thread nicely sums up why cycling is seen as unsafe by the general population. The boy on the bike probably doesn't get the junction right, & he is a fool for not anticipating that the Jag driver is a psycho. He should have let it lie.
However, all he was trying to do was negotiate a dangerous junction safely. The problem in this country is that the minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon. An attitude supported by some of the knuckle-dragging attitudes on here. As we see from the video, as with most urban car/bike confrontations: The net effect of the cyclist's actions would be to delay the jag from getting to the back of the queue by a couple ofseconds. Except in this case where he clearly has to make a detour from his normal route down the side road because of his attempted assault. (If he was going down that way noramlly he would have gone straight ahead at the first junction.)

[quote=imnotverygood ]
However, all he was trying to do was negotiate a dangerous junction safely. The problem in this country is that the minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon.The driver beeps pulling across the first junction but doesn't otherwise react. It takes some more gesticulating from the cyclist to wind him up.

Except in this case where he clearly has to make a detour from his normal route down the side road because of his attempted assault. (If he was going down taht way noramlly he would have gone straight ahead at the first junction.)

A pretty decent explanation ... his only mistake was not realising the Jag driver was an idiot.

It was fairly evident from the beeping and mouthing off at each other at the junction that something could easily flair up. Avoiding it entirely would have been the sensible option, for whatever reason (red mist or not) he didn't avoid it.

There are always going to be idiots, the best bet by far is to avoid them at all costs.

minor inconvenience this causes the Jag is apparently justification for using his car as a weapon. An attitude supported by some of the knuckle-dragging attitudes on here

I haven't seen anyone trying to justify the Jag driver, just saying the cyclist could have avoided an altercation and getting nocked off his bike.

Assuming he doesn't live down that road?

Well is he in front of the Jag or behind it?

These are not the only options, and you know that.
A poor start to your argument and one that marks you out.

Behind which red car?

You see this is really telling.
I clearly wrote "when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car".

See the red car at 5 seconds as the cyclist approaches the give way lines?
I'm guessing using the term "give way lines" is probably causing you greater confusion. ❓

The incident happened half a mile up the road from where you're suggesting he put himself in the wrong road position

Incorrect.
That's where the incident ended, when the cyclist fell off, but it started when he pulled out of the minor road with insufficient plan.

The only connection is the driver with rage

I think you'll find the cyclist was also there.

who decided the cyclist is in his way because he's in front.

What is in front of the stationary Jaguar?
It's a car.
What is the distance between the two cars?
Clue: it's insufficient for a bike.
The bike is not in front.
The bike may be fractionally ahead, to the left, but he is not in front.
That is why the cyclist has to cut up the Jag, and that is why the Jag driver was angered.

If that was a car driver indicating to force his way in front of a cyclist, would you be defending the driver?

If you had a conflict with a motorist at a junction like that (although I personally think there is plenty of tarmac for both to make the corner) would you then position yourself in front of that motorist?

Very foolish.

imnotverygood - Member

Doesn't make any difference to the risk posed by the junction.

It wasn't the junction that caused the cyclist a problem.
It was his impatience that caused him to cut up the Jag driver.
My advice would not have led to him cutting up anyone.

[quote=imnotverygood ]Assuming he doesn't live down that road? Sorry. I didn't realize he was a friend of yours. Just covering all the bases 🙂 I had a look on Google Maps to see if there was somewhere significant down there (offices or something) but there didn't seem to be.

It wasn't the junction that caused the cyclist a problem.
It was his impatience that caused him to cut up the Jag driver.
My advice would not have led to him cutting up anyone.

Bike rider was a knob.
Jag driver was (probably) a knob.
People referring to drivers using their vehicles as weapons......well, they should probably know better. 🙂

imnotverygood - Member

You need to read my other posts. Sitting in the traffic won't stop cars cutting you up.

What are you talking about?
It was the cyclist who cut up the driver in the video that we are discussing, not the other way around.

Well, I'm talking about being someone who has had a good look at the junction in [i]real life[/i]. So what I'm saying is that sitting in the line of traffic and acting like a car is not a particularly safe way of trying to get through the junction. What you ascribe as the cyclit's impatience is in fact him trying to find a safe way to use a tricky piece of road layout. That's what I'm talking about.

I dont see any contact there. Appears to me the cyclist was far to busy getting involved to keep his eyes on the road.

IMO cyclist was in the wrong to start with, jag driver overreacts

Both clearly dicks

[quote=sbob ]You see this is really telling.
I clearly wrote "when he emerged from the minor road, either behind the red car or possibly between the blue and red car".

You did, but when he comes out of the junction there is no red car in front of him to pull in behind. I can only assume you mean the correct thing for him to do is to turn right and pull in behind the red car, which is clearly completely nonsensical, and illustrative of the quality of the rest of your argument. Can I just check whether you think he should actually turn right and then do a U turn, or should he squeeze by on the car's left hand side on the wrong side of the road?

The incident happened half a mile up the road from where you're suggesting he put himself in the wrong road position

Incorrect.
That's where the incident ended, when the cyclist fell off, but it started when he pulled out of the minor road with insufficient plan.

Where the cyclist was knocked off (I note the car defenders seem to want to give a different impression). That was where the incident started and ended. As I've thrashed out with James, the cyclist had clearly forgotten about the earlier stuff by then, it was simply the driver who wanted to pick it up - no direct connection at all between the two.

What is in front of the stationary Jaguar?

The cyclist at the point the incident happens, and then a bus.

imnotverygood - Member

Well, I'm talking about being someone who has had a good look at the junction in real life. So what I'm saying is that sitting in the line of traffic and acting like a car is not a particularly safe way of trying to get through the junction

That's your opinion, fair enough if that's the way you feel.

What you ascribe as the cyclit's impatience is in fact him trying to find a safe way to use a tricky piece of road layout. That's what I'm talking about.

Bollocks.
The first thing the cyclist does is pull out of a junction where there isn't space to establish himself.
Safety is obviously not his priority.

Which is my opinion.

Which is backed up by the cyclist then choosing to position himself directly in front of the driver he has knowingly pissed off.

[quote=tpbiker ]I dont see any contact there.

Well I guess the camera isn't actually pointing towards the car at that point 🙄

Have seen a few people make this comment - do you really think the cyclist is making up the collision?

aracer - Member
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.

The driver should absolutely be reported.

Pure chance that the Jag was behind the bus (not that that justifies the Jag's actions, see sentence above.)

Am I alone in not filtering up EVERY SINGLE QUEUE I find?

As for the saying cyclist is not looking for trouble, why does he turn to look at every licence plate in the first queue?

Live and let live on the roads I say, some cyclists are too far ahead if the curve (the curve of "we must overtake all cars" - something I find myself criticising drivers for against us cyclists).

[quote=aracer ]the cyclist had clearly forgotten about the earlier stuff by then
You know what the cyclist remembered just by watching that video? Can you tell us what he had for breakfast too?

Why is there the need to pull in front of the car anyhow to begin with? the road is well wide enough for a car and a bike. Cyclist is trying to take control of the lane when there is no need. If he gets infront of the first car, he's off and across the junction before the first car has barely moved. Piss poor road awareness from the cyclist.

Cyclist is being a bit of a bawbag if you ask me and antagonising the driver. Fact he looks at every driver on the way up and comments on the one he picks on, suggests the antagonisation was premeditated.

I'd be wary of reporting that to the polis, you'll get yourself in bother.

I don't like the cyclists position at the lights ( I would have gone to the front left made eye contact with the guy in the front car and indicated my intention to go right ) but all he does at that point is do the same but to the jag driver a safe thing to do to ensure he does not get creamed if the jag plans to go straight on . Later on he is not being a cock by positioning himself centrally absent a cock in the car behind that is the best safest place to be . The jag repeatedly tries to force past to get nowhere . At which point I'd have been tempted to lose him by going down the centre. But at no point is the cyclist wrong to try and keep his lane position .

aracer - Member

You did, but when he comes out of the junction there is no red car in front of him to pull in behind. I can only assume you mean the correct thing for him to do is to turn right and pull in behind the red car, which is clearly completely nonsensical, and illustrative of the quality of the rest of your argument. Can I just check whether you think he should actually turn right and then do a U turn, or should he squeeze by on the car's left hand side on the wrong side of the road?

This is priceless.

At no point, despite me using the term "give way" do you even for one moment consider that the cyclist should, or even could have given way to the traffic already established on the road he intends to enter.

That tells me everything I need to know about your attitude to safe road use.

Your continued attempts to ask me to choose from options 1 and 2, when 3 to 6 are also available, even when I have already pulled you up on this juvenile tactic also tells me everything I need to know about your ability to discuss something in a sensible and adult manner.

That was where the incident started and ended

You are completely and obviously wrong.

As I've thrashed out with James, the cyclist had clearly forgotten about the earlier stuff by then, it was simply the driver who wanted to pick it up - no direct connection at all between the two.

So now you know what the cyclist was thinking?
Can I borrow your crystal ball for the lottery?

Merry Christmas.
I hope Santa gets you a really good quality bicycle helmet.

both are being dafties, but do you think the jaguar driver would have bumped into the cyclist had the cyclist been driving a car rather than on a bike?
and what have bike helmets got to do with it?

Which is my opinion.

I find myself mostly agreeing with [b]aracer[/b] on this one and like him I find it disturbing how many people on a cycling forum appear to support the idea that cyclists shouldn't be on the road or should stay in the gutter.

That said, I also agree with [b]sbob[/b] that the cyclist made the initial mistake - though it was the Jag driver that then escalated it.

Here is the streetview of the junction for anyone that is interested:

https://goo.gl/maps/C0HqF

As others suggested, staying on the left of traffic wasn't an option there as the traffic can go straight on or right and the cyclist wants to go right.

The cyclist's mistake (as I see it) was filtering up the left when he knew he wanted to go right at the lights. He [i]should[/i] have joined that queue properly, adopting a primary position behind the blue car at the start of the clip.

[i][b]BUT...[/b][/i] the jag driver clearly knew he was there and clearly knew he wanted to turn right, but instead of doing the decent thing (i.e. being forgiving of someone being a numpty and letting him in) he decides to teach him a lesson instead by sounding his horn and trying to use his car to block him as they turn.

Not cool.

Having identified the Jag driver as potential aggro the sensible thing to do would have been to just stay in the queue of traffic behind the bus. Filtering in front of the jag was a legitimate legal move, but not a very sensible one.

And of course the Jag driver ramming him and leaving the scene was completely unacceptable, regardless of what occurred before that!

himupstairs - Member
the jaguar driver would have bumped into the cyclist

As others suggested, staying on the left of traffic wasn't an option there as the traffic can go straight on or right and the cyclist wants to go right.

If he gets in front of the first car he can go what ever way he likes and will be much faster off the mark than the cars.

It's stupid to filter all the way up and sit behind the first car.

So now you know what the cyclist was thinking?

I think he was thinking "yes, finally got one, can't wait to get this on youtube later"

Graham's somethingion is good.

Cyclist shouldn't have pushed in front of Jag.
Jag should have hung back to allow for the cyclist's error.
He didn't.
Cyclist would have been clever to have then kept the Jag in front of him, the only position in which he has any control over their interaction.

As is often the case, it takes two pricks to have a sausage meat sword fight.

ok, so if he didn't bump into him, do you think the jaguar driver would have tried to aggressively bully his way past the cyclist the way he did if the cyclist had been driving a car and not riding a bike?

himupstairs - Member

and what have bike helmets got to do with it?

Having stolen aracer's crystal ball, I have a feeling with his attitude that he will probably end up needing one. 😉

presumably you mean for mounting a gopro to?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

Merry Christmas.

cool, just checking.
wouldn't want to be starting a helmet debate on here after all..!

himupstairs - Member

ok, so if he didn't bump into him, do you think the jaguar driver would have tried to aggressively bully his way past the cyclist the way he did if the cyclist had been driving a car and not riding a bike?

If the cyclist had been driving a car, he would never had bullied his way in front of the Jag in the first place. 💡

If the cyclist had been driving a car, he would never had bullied his way in front of the Jag in the first place.

why's that?

If the cyclist had been driving a car, he would never had bullied his way in front of the Jag in the first place.

himupstairs - Member

cool, just checking.
wouldn't want to be starting a helmet debate on here after all..!

Are you sure?
sbob is pro helmet, pro choice, and chooses not to wear one.
I don't need one as I don't own a go-pro, and subsequently don't get knocked off my bike.

😈

Ahh right, because all drivers are patient and polite? of course!

[quote=imnotverygood ]

If the cyclist had been driving a car, he would never had bullied his way in front of the Jag in the first place.

I don't know if it's relative to the discussion, but I'd like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of the humiliating psychological effects of erectile dysfunction...

sbob, i share your views re helmets. nae quibbles there.

i do find the gopro thing funny - especially as the cyclist in the vid is clearly hoping to catch someone fiddling with their phone whilst sitting in traffic.
then gets a little more than he hoped for!

I don't know if it's relative to the discussion, but I'd like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of the humiliating psychological effects of erectile dysfunction...

😀

[quote=sbob ]At no point, despite me using the term "give way" do you even for one moment consider that the cyclist should, or even could have given way to the traffic already established on the road he intends to enter.

Er, no. I considered that he quite clearly had given way. Because he hadn't done anything "likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/25/made Of course if anything had been moving on the road, or there hadn't been plenty of space to move into, then clearly that might have been an issue, but it wasn't and there was.

Hence I was ignoring your reference to that.

Why, what did you think "give way" meant? How do you think you "give way" to stationary traffic?

raise awareness

yunki - Member

I don't know if it's relative to the discussion, but I'd like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of the humiliating psychological effects of erectile dysfunction..

I drive a twenty year old Nissan Micra with flower stickers on it. That pretty much guarantees my status as a sexual tyrannosaurus.

And it's an auto.

I can feel your wives trembling from here.

[quote=sbob ]Can I borrow your crystal ball for the lottery?

Can I borrow yours?

[quote=sbob ]Which is backed up by the cyclist then choosing to position himself directly in front of the driver he has knowingly pissed off.

Because it seems far more likely to me that the cyclist is simply ignoring the car and it just happens that the convenient space is in front of it, than deliberately putting himself in front of it to piss the driver off. Give me one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise...

I can feel your [s]wives[/s]thighs trembling from here.

FTFY 😉

Hence I was ignoring your reference to that.

You were ignoring my reference to it because it doesn't suit your selfish style of road use.

Of course if anything had been moving on the road, or there hadn't been plenty of space to move into, then clearly that might have been an issue, but it wasn't and there was.

Except there wasn't plenty of space to move into, he had to force his way in front of the Jag.

How do you think you give way to stationary traffic?

Are you saying you would have pulled out if you were in a car?
Does traffic cease to occupy space at zero velocity?

That's mental.

[img] [/img]

[quote=sbob ]You were ignoring my reference to it because it doesn't suit your selfish style of road use.

Actually on second thoughts I don't want to borrow your crystal ball. I was ignoring it because it clearly didn't apply - are you disputing the law I've given you a link to?

Except there wasn't plenty of space to move into, he had to force his way in front of the Jag.

er, 'At no point, despite me using the term "give way" do you even for one moment consider that the cyclist should, or even could have given way to the traffic already established on the road he intends to enter.', 'See the red car at 5 seconds as the cyclist approaches the give way lines?' - we were talking about giving way at the give way lines weren't we? Or is there some other point you wanted him to pull behind the red car?

Are you saying you would have pulled out if you were in a car?
Does traffic cease to occupy space at zero velocity?
That's mental.

Well quite clearly not, because there wouldn't have been space to pull into. With a bike there is. The other traffic is irrelevant because there is still plenty of space even with it there. If you think he didn't obey the "give way", maybe you could give a link to the law you think he's broken if you don't like the law I found regarding give way lines.

[img] [/img]Hmm. That would be a great colour for a bike frame.

Can I borrow yours?

I don't have one.
That's why I don't base my arguments on pretending I do.

That would be mental.

Because it seems far more likely to me that the cyclist is simply ignoring the car and it just happens that the convenient space is in front of it, than deliberately putting himself in front of it to piss the driver off. Give me one piece of evidence to suggest otherwise

Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver, without your crystal ball we don't know.
We do know that the Jag driver is already a bit pissed off due to being cut up by the cyclist.
That is why it would be sensible to stay behind the car, where you have more control.
It is a safer position to adopt.

This is a pointless discussion though as you have already nailed your colours to the mast and it is obvious that safety isi not your priority.

[quote=sbob ]Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver

You wrote "choosing to position himself" - apologies if you didn't express yourself clearly, and didn't mean that being directly in front of the Jag was anything other than an accident.

Or are you going to suggest there's also a third option here apart from him deliberately putting himself in front of that car and it being a coincidence?

This is a pointless discussion though as you have already nailed your colours to the mast and it is obvious that safety isi not your priority.

Exactly what have I written which gives you that idea? Or are you employing your non-existent crystal ball again?

[img] [/img]

Comprehension failure.
I'm not saying the cyclist got in front of the Jag at that point to antagonize the driver, without your crystal ball we don't know.
We do know that the Jag driver is already a bit pissed off due to being cut up by the cyclist.
That is why it would be sensible to stay behind the car, where you have more control.
It is a safer position to adopt.

Maybe, but the traffic also moved as the cyclist passed the Jag, and the cyclist kept pace - it's where I would sit at that particular moment in time. Difference is I probably wouldn't have bothered reprimanding the Jag driver.

As for who's wrong and who's right - in my mind the Jag driver is an utter twunt, but starting with a 'c'.

are you disputing the law I've given you a link to?

You are still doing it!
How can you continue to try and use that tactic when I have so clearly pointed it out?

I'm disputing that the cyclist had room to move into. You know this. You quoted me on it.

There is room for me to get my Micra down the left hand side of that queue.
Would you advise me to drive up the left hand side of that queue if I intended to turn right at the end?

I'd genuinely like an answer and an explanation.

[quote=sbob ]I'm disputing that the cyclist had room to move into.
...
There is room for me to get my Micra down the left hand side of that queue.

😕

Can I check exactly what it is you're arguing here? Are you suggesting he didn't give way at the give way lines or something different?

aracer - Member

You wrote "choosing to position himself" - apologies if you didn't express yourself clearly, and didn't mean that being directly in front of the Jag was anything other than an accident.

Or are you going to suggest there's also a third option here apart from him deliberately putting himself in front of that car and it being a coincidence?

Are you simple?
Of course the cyclist chose to position himself in front of the Jag. What we don't know is whether or not he did this to antagonize the driver.
It's you that is claiming to have this knowledge, which you don't, not I.

I don't think anyone else here is having trouble understanding my posts, it is just you.
You may want to think about that.

Waste of police time? So you don't think they should do anything to him even if he does have history?

I'm merely saying that there's bugger all evidence in that video to suggest the driver did much wrong. Without actual witness statements the most likely police response would be to call the cyclist an antagonising wee bawbag. I'll put money on this guy posting another 'near miss' video in the future-if he lives long enough to do so.

aracer - Member

Can I check exactly what it is you're arguing here?

You seem to be struggling to understand the simple English I have been using in my posts, see GrahamS' post for what I am suggesting the cyclist should have done, as he is in complete agreement with me.

I'd still like an answer.

Bit late to the party here but IMO both the driver and the cyclist are nobbers.

neilsonwheels - Member

Bit late to the party here but IMO both the driver and the cyclist are nobbers

Far too sensible a position, pick a side and fight to the death.

Well I reckon you'd have to mount the kerb at 0:10, so I'd not advise it in your Micra. Clearly and legally you can filter on a bicycle, and as there almost always isn't room between cars to pull into when they're in a stationary queue like that it is standard practice to wait for gaps to open up once traffic starts moving. You don't do that in a Micra.

Though having made lots of accusations of tactics against me, I note you're now avoiding the question of whether you still think the cyclist didn't give way at the first junction as you asserted earlier...

Ahhh the UK and the type of letter of the law bullshit comments in this thread.

It's an outrage I tell you! No, the cyclist is a cock.

I may regret joining in...

but I'm not very sure there was contact between the Jag and the bike. It looks to me (not there, don't know, etc) that the Jag was further away from the bike after the fall than would have been the case had there been a bump. Otherwise, he'd have hit the bus too?

Might I also be so bold as to postulate the that Jag driver really was an officer of the law? Despite the ongoing discussion I got the impression of some room between car and bike. That doesn't explain why the car drove away, unless it was to get off the main road so the driver could walk back to assist. I wonder what the next few minutes of film showed, or indeed the cameras that the bus driver mentioned.

I don't know the junction, but got the impression that the choice of position by the cyclist could have been better - he said at the start that the driver was ignoring him, but chose to join the line of traffic there anyway. As others have said, the whole thing could have been so easily avoided.

My crystal ball/blatant construction says he was riding fixed on a road bike and caught the front mudguard with his foot.

aracer - Member

Though having made lots of accusations of tactics against me, I note you're now avoiding the question of whether you still think the cyclist didn't give way at the first junction as you asserted earlier...

I've made my position clear, as have you.
You're condoning actions that did lead to a conflict between driver and cyclist.
This is undeniable.
I'm suggesting a different course of action that may not have led to a conflict between driver and cyclist.

It's as simple as that.
Choose a definite bad outcome or a possible good one.

I suppose it takes all sorts, and masochism isn't necessarily a crime.
😆

Which sad sack films their commute to work?

Do thet masturbate at the footage when they get home?

Actually, that's not a bad idea. How much are these little cameras?

Which sad sack films their commute to work?

Lots of people. It's growing in popularity, on bikes and also in cars.

The footage is often the essential evidence that lets something happen (e.g. insurance payout, police action)

The wait behind the cars at the first junction idea is, frankly, bobbins. During commute times there is pretty much an unlimited number of cars behind you, if you join the back of the queue by the time you get to turning right you'll have a car behind you and if the driver is impatient you end up in the same situation as our boy in the video. The locals have already made it clear it's a shitty junction for cyclists to turn right at, there's one near me, hold secondary the drivers behind overtake and squeeze you into the kerb on the exit, hold primary and they undertake leading to who knows what on exit and there's the risk of someone going straight on just wiping you out whatever position you adopt.

So unless you want to spend longer getting to work than by car pick a place to cut in, front is probably best as you aren't singling any driver out for "pushing infront of" but not always doable if traffic starts moving on your approach (and if the driver at the front is a nutter you still get the rage effect jag guy showed).

Bikes and cars move at different speeds there's always going to be a cat and mouse effect we just all have to accept bikes will be cutting in and out of traffic as roads widen/narrow and traffic flow increases and decreases, the alternative is no one ever passing each other unless there is more than one lane - see how long drivers put up with [b]never[/b] overtaking a cyclist on standard single lane roads, reckon drivers would get bored of that before cyclists got bored of never filtering.

ok....im going to bite...

tpbiker » I dont see any contact there.

Well I guess the camera isn't actually pointing towards the car at that point

Have seen a few people make this comment - do you really think the cyclist is making up the collision?

POSTED 18 HOURS AGO #

You love twisting things for your own argument don't you aracer. Please point out where I said he made up the collision. I'm implying he may have fallen off without contact because he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing, which is entirely possible. A number of people have expressed the same view.

But no doubt you'll come back ridiculing this rational with some reason why this is impossible, followed up with some slightly patronising smilie for good measure.

Is aracer filling some pretty big shoes of a now departed Big Hitter?

The wait behind the cars at the first junction idea is, frankly, bobbins. During commute times there is pretty much an unlimited number of cars behind you, if you join the back of the queue by the time you get to turning right you'll have a car behind you and if the driver is impatient you end up in the same situation as our boy in the video.

At the start of the video he could have joined that queue between the blue and red car.

The red car is actually hanging back and obeying the Keep Clear at the junction (a rare sight) so that marks them as someone I'd be happy to have behind me.

[img] [/img]

More importantly that would have allowed the cyclist to join the queue in the primary position and hold the lane through the junction.

Instead he (illegally) filtered up the left hand side of traffic when he knew he wanted to turn right at the lights. That was a dumb move and put him in direct conflict with other road users and forced him to try and get from the secondary to the primary as he crossed a junction with a car on his right.

(None of that excuses the actions of the Jag driver)

I still think this is largely the driver being a dick, however not taking primary when you intend to turn right is daft.

Trying to turn right from the left hand side of a lane and relying on the good will of others isn't clever.

that marks them as someone I'd be happy to have behind me.

Actually, that's not a bad idea. How much are these little cameras?

Very useful during urban summer commuting. Especially on cycle paths through parks.

Just a thought...