You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
(cue lots of people saying it's all the cyclist's fault)
Surely the footage with his number plate is pretty good and you can see the cyclist dodging the punch?
The car was registered in Northampton,
Another day in paradise...
Driver is a nasty thug, but if you're going to chase after him & shout at the window that he's an [expletive deleted], then either handbags or a punishment pass are the two most likely outcomes.
It's the cyclist being sought, not the driver (for those of you thinking the driver is the victim 😉 ) - no charges without a victim. Oh, and the thug throwing punches isn't the driver either.
Clearly the driver does break the law, but 😆 at the thought of getting the police to charge somebody for an ASL offence.
The driver was out of order - but no need for the cyclist to chase after him and call him a ****ing prick. Deserved a punch.
why did the cyclist block the forward box by going 3 abreast?
[quote=damo2576 ]Deserved a punch.
Yes, clearly that's always the correct response to somebody swearing at you 🙄
Cyclist was too aggressive, though we didn't see what might have gone on previously - there's not a great deal of space for bikes and cars on that section as it narrows from two lanes.
Didn't deserve a punching though.
Shame the other cyclists didn't pile in after.
ton - Member
why did the cyclist block the forward box by going 3 abreast?
because its the safest place to be, and those ASLs fill up quickly in that London, its only courtesy to move over otherwise other cyclists are forced to queue up the inside of cars
Firstly, in that situation with a clear road ahead, I wouldn't have gone into the ASL at all, I'd just have waited in the queue of other riders. It's obvious that the car can make a clear unimpeded run away from the lights so why bother overtaking it, it's only going to come straight back past you.
Yes, the Audi driver was a knob to attempt to intrude on the lane like that but then what reaction did the rider think he was going to get chasing him down and screaming abuse?
Both as bad as each other.
[quote=brakes ]Cyclist was too aggressive, though we didn't see what might have gone on previously
I think you see everything relevant - started by driver being a **** in the ASL box, and according to cyclist's claim then running over his foot.
Makes me realise how lucky I am to have a relatively quiet commute, nothing about above clip looks enjoyable.
As for the 'assault'....I watched it without sound so I stand to be corrected but cyclist looked aggressive and threatening, might have asked driver to get out.......I would have got out and who knows what would have happened??
Edit: too slow.
It was the rear seat pasenger that did the punching, look for him opening the rear drivers side door, unless he is so thick he got in the wrong door.The driver has a grey jumper on, the thug just a white shirt.
Must have been an intresting journey into work after that.
[quote=crazy-legs ]Both as bad as each other.
Stupid comments were predicted 🙄
so cyclists who are going straight on, fill up the box blocking cars from going straight on?
why not use common sense, stay 2 abreast and do not create a situation.
kimbers - Member
ton - Member
why did the cyclist block the forward box by going 3 abreast?
because its the safest place to be, and those ASLs fill up quickly in that London, its only courtesy to move over otherwise other cyclists are forced to queue up the inside of cars
Also that section of road is not one where you gain anything by overtaking its a short stretch and as was shown, the people whom the driver overtook got the the traffic lights at the same change.
Yes, clearly that's always the correct response to somebody swearing at you
No of course not. But in that context, creating a confrontation as the cyclist did, frankly you deserve to get punched or should at least be prepared for that outcome.
Sure the driver was impatient and stupid to pull to the side to get away at the lights but it did not put the cyclist in danger and it was the cyclists own behaviour that brought the confrontation about.
If you are going to shout expletives at someone through their window you better be prepared for some sort of retort. Some people shout back, some people try and hide and some are violent. That's life. If you aren't prepared to back up your aggressive name-calling, learn some restraint in the first place.
I'm not saying the driver was justified in punching him btw but chasing him down and having a go at him was just daft, he ruined his own day.
[quote=damo2576 ]No of course not. But in that context, creating a confrontation as the cyclist did, frankly you deserve to get punched
Deserve? Really?
I'm not saying the driver was justified in punching him btw but chasing him down and having a go at him was just daft, he ruined his own day.
Dont the police get paid to do that every day.
why did the cyclist block the forward box by going 3 abreast?
Who cares it a box for cyclists that a car RLJ's in order to endanger them - that is what the big white line means and jumoping ahead of them saved them no time though they did get to the next red light marginally quicker than the cyclist - it was a pointless overtake.
IME if someone is that aggressive best to let them pass you - they are a swear word though.
Not that helpful a response by the cyclist though he is still the victim if an assault.
Take the bikes out of the equation & you get some bloke mouthing off & getting a smack for his trouble.
Dont the police get paid to do that every day.
Heh...
Firstly, in that situation with a clear road ahead, I wouldn't have gone into the ASL at all, I'd just have waited in the queue of other riders. It's obvious that the car can make a clear unimpeded run away from the lights so why bother overtaking it, it's only going to come straight back past you.
^^^ This, When your just going to hold up cars with a clear run in front of them. Gave up doing it a long time ago.
I have nit watched the footage but on the point of asl use generally I would have thought that the more people that can get in it the better.
1 - it is infinitely easier to be seen when directly in front of a waiting car than down its left hand and typically most blind side.
2 - the cyclists waiting to the left get more gassed from exhaust fumes while waiting to pull away in a line.
I wouldn't sit bang in the middle of one too go straight on if the only person waiting but I wouldn't box my fellow cyclists in down the side of a queue of traffic for some ungrateful sod in a car either.
As a driver I know why the asl is there it is to give bikes priority and as such I should and do respect their right to be in it.
it is common courtesy to ride 2 abreast in England, the cyclist went 3 wide blocking other road users way. the cyclist was out of order, things escalated, the cyclist got his twopenneth.
Deserve? Really?
Yes. Really. Agressive, shouting, swearing, banging on his window. Create those situations and you deserve some kind of response. He's probably just got away with it before because its been little old ladies or something.
Ton - thats not riding. That is queing
I agree, sorry, but he blocked others way when he had no need to.
He didn't bang on the window, and strangely the law says that hitting somebody is assault, but swearing at them isn't. I'm still trying to process the idea that you "deserve" violence for swearing at somebody who's just endangered you. For reference the driver "created" the situation by breaking the law in the first place.
a clear run in front of them
so they reach the lights marginally quicker than the cyclist then block them in again - its not a "clear run" its a shared use space. you may as well ask all the cars to park up to give all cyclist a clear run
Why does the driver not just sit behind as they are not going any faster than the cyclist
IME you get it all the time they overtake unsafely to only join the traffic jam and then they repeat this over and over again.
The law states we can do this so we do. Sitting on the inside is not that great if someone decides to turn left either so it gets the majority of cyclists out the danger crush zone where the drivers can easily see them and give them the courtesy they deserve
the cyclist went 3 wide blocking other road users way
How did he block then? They are not legally allowed in that space? I am sure they would have filtered so they could get to the next red ahead of them where of course they would block the road with their car.
Even when cyclist does what the law says and the car does not some cyclist argue we are being inconsiderate 🙄
Stupid comments were predicted
Sorry but in this instance, the cyclist created the incident himself. He didn't HAVE to go into the ASL, it's not a rule. By going into it, he prevented the car from making one nice clean getaway. I don't condone the driver's actions in attempting to get round him like that but can you understand why the driver might just have got a tiny bit frustrated by that?
He had a nice clear road. But by boxing him in like that, the cyclist has actually made the situation for him, the driver and the other cyclists MORE dangerous. The driver now has to negotiate several bikes all moving off at different speeds - before that, he could have got away without endangering anyone. There was zero advantage for the cyclist in being there, all he did was piss off another road user (who at that point had done nothing wrong).
Why does the driver not just sit behind as they are not going any faster than the cyclist
this works in reverse too.
Love the background traintracks sounding like The Terminator soundtrack 😀
Cyclists fault as far as I'm concerned . The driver shouldn't have been in the box but it wasn't the cyclists job to point that out to him and chasing him down and swearing at him is disgraceful behaviour . Had the cyclist not acted in the way he did then the incident would not have happened .
[quote=crazy-legs]Sorry but in this instance, the cyclist created the incident himself.
Well apart from the fact that the cyclist didn't break the law and both the driver and his passenger did. Though apparently despite that they're both as bad as each other 🙄
Presumably we should just get rid of ASL boxes as you see no point to them?
IME you get it all the time they overtake unsafely to only join the traffic jam and then they repeat this over and over again.
Exactly. In traffic with regular traffic lights you can consider either the car to be slowed down by the cyclist having to overtake after each traffic light or the cyclists being obstructed by the car by having to re-overtake at each queue or slow moving section. There is no difference. The mean speed of both is the same, just because one momentary reached a higher speed is irrelevant.
[quote=Ramsey Neil ]Cyclists fault as far as I'm concerned
We have a winner!
this works in reverse too.
except the cyclist can legally enter the box and the driver cannot.
your issue is with the rules then only one of them broke the law - clue its is the one you are defending
both end up swapping positions as to who is at the front - not that it is a race
Had the cyclist not acted in the way he did then the incident would not have happened .
Has the drive not been aggressive first this would not have happened. The cyclist was aggressive, but the car drive was aggressive first.
He didn't bang on the window, and strangely the law says that hitting somebody is assault, but swearing at them isn't.
Threatening, abusive or insulting language in a public place falls under the Public Order Act. It an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress.
Probably most significantly in this case it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them.
I would argue this was the greater offence than the driver (however stupidly) attempting to position to overtake the ASL. I'm not even sure you'll find a car in the ASL to be a criminal offence.
Driver is obviously a aggressive thug, but, if you're going to chase someone down and get in their face, you need to be able to back it up, not get punched the **** out.
Some people are idiots, they deserved each other and no one got hurt by the looks of things.
The cyclist was an idiot and probably deserved it. Cannot stand sanctimonious cyclists like that. I'll bet he'd been mouthing off to other motorists that morning before this incident at any of the most minuscule real and perceived motorists infractions.
[quote=damo2576 ]Probably most significantly in this case it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them.
Except he didn't actually do that did he?
I'm not even sure you'll find a car in the ASL to be a criminal offence.
You should have tried googling for that one whilst you were at it - same offence as the one cyclists are normally accused of.
Even without intent still an offence.
[quote=damo2576 ]Even without intent still an offence.
Actually no it isn't. Back to google.
Cyclist had a panier rack!
I'd have punched him just for that!
Cyclist had a panier rack!I'd have punched him just for that!
And a rucksack!
it is an offence but the rule of sticks and stones would seem to apply here- that works in courts right 😉
Hurling abuse is generally not as bad as hitting someone
That said the cyclist is over reacting but if he has been run over you can see why..
There must have been a bit of conflict before that point.
I would continue to pass the aggressive cars at the lights (of which there are plenty on that stretch of road) and give them a cheeky thumbs up on the way past.
No helmet
Presumably we should just get rid of ASL boxes as you see no point to them?
No, they can be very useful - however in this instance although it was perfectly [b]legal[/b] for the cyclist to position himself there it was utterly pointless. All it did was box in a driver who up until then could have got away cleanly. A driver who is out of the way (and in front) is one who cannot knock you over or get pissed off at you.
Of course the driver should have just accepted it as one of those things that happens when you're driving in London. Of course he should have shown patience and tolerance.
But equally, the cyclist should have shown some courtesy too - you don't box someone in just cos it's legal for you to do so. He gained nothing from being there.
If it was heavy traffic and the car was jammed in then yes, go for it but blocking a clear getaway just cos you can is basic lack of courtesy.
This is worth a read:
http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-road-to-hell-is-paved-with-asls/
There's another blog post which I'm still trying to find about why using ASLs isn't always a good idea.
**** me there are some proper bell ends in here tonight.
THE POINT OF THE ASL IS TO LET THE CYCLISTS GET AWAY FIRST. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever is responsible for the road layout in that area.
And yes, it is an offence to cross the rear line, punishable with a £60 fine and 3 points.
the ASLs are there to protect cyclists from having to queue up the inside of cars
in case some people hadnt noticed theres been a spate of high profile cyclist deaths in london and being on the inside of cars at traffic lights is as dangerous as it gets. And their use has been encouraged and reinforced lately by the mayor and police at major junctions
the car driver was an obvious dick, aggressively entering the ASL is the work of a bad driver, simples. its also 3 points and a fine iirc
ultimately pointless in central london where its only a few hundred metres to the next set of lights and queue of traffic, cycling is the quickest way around town, and thats the cause of a lot of drivers frustration and envy directed at cyclists
however the cyclist didnt need to chase after him and start shouting, a simple one handed gesture wouldve been my response, either the classic w@nk3r or little finger tiny penis one seems to upset the most, maybe go retro and try dickhead? ;-
as for the thug who got out and attacked the cyclist, hes just a scumbag, and I hope he sees a courtroom soon
Here we go, found the other blog post:
http://www.magnatom.net/2012/01/advanced-stop-lines-spawn-of-satan.html
Specifically, this flow chart:
[img] 
[/img]
you don't box someone in just cos it's legal for you to do so. He gained nothing from being there.
they are not boxing anyone in there are placing their cycle where it can legally be placed. You may as well argue the car is boxing in the cycles as it has also stopped their progress - though of course they then broke the law to do this when the RLJ ed
The overwhelming feeling I get when these videos pop up is that I'm glad I don't live in London or anywhere that some of you lot drive.
The overwhelming feeling I get when these videos pop up is that
there is usually going to be at least two dickheads involved
Flow chart needs a supplementary graph.
I see shit like this all the time (apart from the fisticuffs). Par for the course.
Makes a nice change to the overly-PC, overly political, overly polite bollocks that occupy the office environment I work in.
[quote=crazy-legs ]Here we go, found the other blog post:
Interesting to see that's by somebody most of the pro car anti cyclist mob on here undoubtedly dislike! To be honest I largely agree with him, but still don't see that the cyclist actually did anything wrong before the driver did.
Driver was in a posh Audi, he was bound to be a prick.
They are best avoided IMO.
ton speaks sense, and as people have said, take the audi and the bike out the equation and its like being in a pub.
someone pushes into someoens space, that person gets upset and argues, it gets left but one person wont let it go and has to get one last insult in, then gets dropped.
doesnt matter if they are on a bike or in a car, just a pair of dickheads
Ton- your wrong; even if I'm on my own in an ASL I will be in the middle, that's the point of them to give cyclist an opportunity to being front of traffic.
**** me there are some proper bell ends in here tonight.THE POINT OF THE ASL IS TO LET THE CYCLISTS GET AWAY FIRST. If you don't like it, take it up with whoever is responsible for the road layout in that area.
And yes, it is an offence to cross the rear line, punishable with a £60 fine and 3 points.
+1
And thumping someone is much worse than swearing at someone.
I can't believe cyclists are supporting or justifying the driver. That said the rider needs to calm down. I ride Farringdon Road several times a week and its fine. Has some good Strava segments....
'kin hell. We have to read flow charts to understand cycling? 😉
Cyclist was a bit aggressive, and I agree, if you're gonna do that, you should probably be able to back it up. But to say he shouldn't be where he was ... that's what the ASL is for!! Dems da rules. You really can't win on a bike it seems. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Keep the flow charts coming. We'll get there eventually.
Driver was initially a bit of a dick but the cyclist needs anger management lessons. I'm not sure if getting out and lamping him was exactly a reasonable response but it was fairly predictable.
Chasing the driver down and shouting at him is bloody stupid.
Lord above, this place is ridiculous. I know which one of those morons I'd rather be locked up.... Its the one testing the 0-60 time of his Audi in central London and then getting his mates to punch people in the face for swearing at him.
But yeah, the cyclist deserved it.... 🙄
1. The cyclists used the ASL correctly - nothing at all wrong with their positioning, that's what it's for. This is exactly what you'd see in Denmark or the Netherlands where ASLs are common.
2. The car driver broke the law by entering the box whilst the light was on red. Fixed £100 fine.
3. The cyclist calmly attempted to inform the driver of his mistake...a little superior, and I wouldn't have done it, but hey ho.
4. The cyclist took umbrage at the drivers apparent unconcern and [i]slightly[/i] reckless driving and made a rather rash decision.
5. The cyclist then verbally abused the driver.
6. The rear seat passenger then assaults the cyclist.
The driver is due a fine, the cyclist is due a talking to, and passenger is due a caution (or worse if they have previous).
[quote=hh45]I can't believe cyclists are supporting or justifying the driver.
Not been here long?
Driver a nob. Cyclist a nob. Passenger is the end of a bell. Cyclist should have rammed bike and fallen in to side of Audi when passenger hit him. Scratched and dented doors and wing would be a couple of grand to repair and all passengers fault...
I think he's shouting "you nearly ran over my *ing foot" so the passenger punches him in the face and threatens - "I'll ing lay you out"
I commute by bike and car, First words with driver exceptable as driver was wrong to do what he did but chasing him down and confronting a second time makes them both as bad as each other.
Both deserve a good talking to.
If i have not made it to a ASL box before the light hits read then I stay out of it it is a solid white line there for should not be crossed. But thats me looking at it from driving and a motorcycling point of view.
The cyclist was initially in the right.
Then became a complete arse when he swore.
He swore at the wrong guy, got a slap. Did he deserve it? Probably not but maybe he'll learn should it happen again.
I have no sympathy.
Some of you people are nuts. The cyclists weren't going to slow the car- you can tell, because if it had been a "nice clear road" they wouldn't have caught up with him so easily at the next set of traffic lights. So the car would have lost nothing by staying where he was [i]legally required to stay.[/i]
Yes, his reaction was OTT but that doesn't earn a punch! Apparently it's worse to call a *ing * a *ing * than it is to be a *ing *.