[Closed] Road rage assault on cyclist - victim sought

You are kidding brooness? He wasn't just standing up for our community,as you put it. Do you think he contributed to getting hit,as you seem to have ignored his behavior after the car drove off. I would hate that idiot to be representative of cycling,Rosa Parks he ain't.
See,this is what I don't think you or the OP get( or the cyclist in the film) l grew up in a shithole estate in Dundee. Speaking to somebody like that would only have one outcome...so you didn't do it. It has nothing to do with having a car around you or hating cyclists,it is a mindset developed during your secondary socialization.
I realize that there has been a fair bit of debate on this thread about how the cyclist did nothing in the eyes of the law,but to me,guy on the bike produces the first disproportionate reaction by chasing down the car and confronting the driver, Passenger second.
Did he deserve a punch for swearing? Nope. Was he contributing to getting one? Yup.

Brooess for president.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Why should we allow ourselfs to be treated like shit on the roads.

Brooess for president.

Duckman, you're right that calling someone a prick when they've already proven they're aggressive and ignorant (of the law around ASLs) isn't likely to end in you having a peaceful day... BUT...

the driver broke the law. There's no debate about that. That kind of aggression and generalised mistreatment of cyclists is what has to stop if society in general (ie: real people) are to benefit from cycling e.g.
Obesity (adults and children)
Mental health
Pollution (Air and noise)
Global warming
General chilling out, friendliness and being nice to people

So having a pop at the cyclist for not letting it go isn't really helping is it?

It's not great that physical abuse of cyclists is so prevalent and neither is it so great that victims of such aggression seem to be frequently blamed for their own mistreatment - by police, public, other cyclists.

I don't believe the black, gay or female communities won their battles by blaming their own members for their mistreatment. Not being a member of any of them, I don't know but it does sadden me that when a cyclist appears to be standing up to someone who has quite definitely broken the law (moving into the ASL) that other members of the same community suggest it's his own fault for getting hit..

The cyclist wasn't assaulted because he was a cyclist he was assaulted for confronting the driver/passenger.

I'm not helping what exactly baroness? ( iPad spell check,but suits l think) again,cyclist was an idiot. Do you think his behavior was acceptable? You clearly do by trying to make excuses for him. He escalated the situation by going for the car,which despite any justification you try to make for him,he did.

Imagine the cyclist was a young child eg under 16, cycling to school etc with dad, car pulls up close to son and dad points out the driver has made an illegal movement,driver swears at dad and son, driver rushes off to be chased by dad whos not having his child threatened, man juumps out of car and attacks dad.

Or imagine the driver had a swan in the back seat of the car and it jumped out and broke the child's arm with one peck of its mighty beak. Well if we are reaching the conjecture stage...

Imagine the cyclist was a young child eg under 16, cycling to school etc with dad, car pulls up close to son and dad points out the driver has made an illegal movement,driver swears at dad and son, driver rushes off to be chased by dad whos not having his child threatened, man juumps out of car and attacks dad.

but that didn't happen did it? If we want to throw up hypothetical situations...

(And as someone else said) imagine if it was you in the car with your child in the back and some nutter started banging on the window and screaming abuse. What would you do?

Imagine if they had a half alligator\half shark man in the boot of the car with a roll of ducktape?

[quote=tpbiker opined](And as someone else said) imagine if it was you in the car with your child in the back and some nutter started banging on the window and screaming abuse. What would you do?

I wouldn't pull into the ASL or screech off when there was a cyclist standing close enough to my car that I could easily hit him. That's what I'd do - and to be honest that's what anybody with or without a child in the car should do. Having a child in the car makes for no more of an excuse for reacting with violence when you're pulled up on your incorrect behaviour.

So in future, if a car breaks the highway code, nearly runs someone over, we should let it go. No one should tell them they're wrong, so they can continue driving like a prick. Till they kill someone...

[quote=duckman]You are kidding brooness? He wasn't just standing up for our community,as you put it. Do you think he contributed to getting hit,as you seem to have ignored his behavior after the car drove off.

Yes, in just the same way women in short skirts contribute to getting sexually attacked. You see that's just what you're doing there - the law doesn't consider somebody shouting abuse at you to be a defence against a charge of assault any more than it considers women's attire to be a defence against a charge of sexual assault.

I think the big issue here is that the driver's behaviour is seen as so commonplace that we're conditioned to just ignore it. When somebody doesn't ignore it they're the one who is different - not only different to other drivers, but also different to other cyclists who seem to reckon that the best solution is to simply be meek in the face of poor driving behaviour.

...and what uselesshippy said

The cyclist was a complete numpty who has issues.
The driver displayed poor driving skills and etiquette.

But did not endanger the cyclist or do anything to illicit such a response from the cyclist.
You could see the cyclist clearly lost the plot chased down the car, braked hard narrowly avoiding hitting the car before leaning in to scream obscenities with his angry head at the driver.

He clearly lost it, either he is a bully or was having a bad day and just saw red.
But what he did I would consider threatening behaviour.

And would have caused the driver to be either fearfull or want to get out and give him a smack in the mouth.
Maybe the driver was intimidated and the passenger took it upon himself to smack him in the mouth.

The law says you can't smack someone even if they behave like a complete plick but that does not give you the right to be a plick.

So in future, if a car breaks the highway code, nearly runs someone over, we should let it go. No one should tell them they're wrong, so they can continue driving like a prick. Till they kill someone...

There is telling someone they have done something wrong and then there is screaming offensive language through a window.

The first conversation seemed relaxed enough.

He trys to tell them they've done something wrong, then the Audi jumps a red light and nearly runs him over.
I agree, the cyclist was OTT, but deserving a slap? No.
There is something wrong in our society if we defend assault and driving like this.

tpbiker - Member

Imagine the cyclist was a young child eg under 16, cycling to school etc with dad, car pulls up close to son and dad points out the driver has made an illegal movement,driver swears at dad and son, driver rushes off to be chased by dad whos not having his child threatened, man juumps out of car and attacks dad.

but that didn't happen did it? If we want to throw up hypothetical situations...

(And as someone else said) imagine if it was you in the car with your child in the back and some nutter started banging on the window and screaming abuse. What would you do?

Just wind down the widow a bit and ask him to calm down, then pull over and have a chat with him about his obvious upset, so easy and no agression neded.

Real world, actions have consequences.
If you think some one can go around verbally abusing people with a big angry head and not cop the occasional slap, you're wrong.

May not be right, but that is how it is.

Real world if you get out of car and punch someone from behind when they are not looking you are a bit of a coward and deserve to get arrested.

[quote=chip opined]Real world, actions have consequences.
If you think some one can go around verbally abusing people with a big angry head and not cop the occasional slap, you're wrong.
May not be right, but that is how it is.

Yeah, just like women walking around at night in short skirts.

Did not say you don't deserve to get arrested.

But I will say, my money is on that this is not first time that particular cyclist has behaved like this. And I am guessing he does not limit his wrath only to people big and ugly enough to defend them selfs, and gallant he ain't.

Aracer,

What is with your obsession with women and short skirts.

Aracer,only in your fevered imagination is thinking the guy in this clip is a dick is the same as thinking that I an apologist for assaulting women. Such a comparison suggests are an idiot.

[quote=chip opined]The cyclist [s]was a complete numpty who has issues.[/s] got upset by aggressive driving.
The driver [s]displayed poor driving skills and etiquette.[/s] broke the law.
But did not endanger the cyclist or do anything to illicit such a response from the cyclist.

Really? Screeching off when the cyclist was stood within inches? Clearly the cyclist thought he was endangered, and I thought that was the standard the violence apologists were applying for justifying retaliation.

You could see the cyclist ... braked hard narrowly avoiding hitting the car

er, no he didn't

either he is a bully

🙄

But what he did I would consider threatening behaviour.

I don't think the law would

And would have caused the driver to be either fearfull or want to get out and give him a smack in the mouth.

Did the cyclist deserve it?

Maybe the driver was intimidated and the passenger took it upon himself to smack him in the mouth.

I'm sure that was the case.

The law says you can't smack someone even if they behave like a complete plick but that does not give you the right to be a plick.

Strangely enough the law says you have a right to shout sweary things if it is justified (by for example a driver not paying much attention to your safety).

[quote=duckman opined]Aracer,only in your fevered imagination is thinking the guy in this clip is a dick is the same as thinking that I an apologist for assaulting women.

You don't appear to have understood the comparison. You're suggesting his actions contributed to him getting hit. Women going around at night on their own in short skirts contribute to them getting attacked. Just because you don't like the comparison doesn't make it invalid.

Since you feel the cyclists actions were justified,and are attempting to suggest anybody who does not is wrong,aggressive and actually an apologist for sexual assault,l will leave you with one Q...If the cyclist hadn't thumped the window,what would have happened?

Try writing a post without a load of strawmen and I might consider it. Not that I'm sure it's a particularly useful question - I'll answer a different one for free - if the driver hadn't pulled into the ASL box, or hadn't screeched off when the cyclist was stood right next to the car I don't think anything would have happened.

I would have knocked the Audi nob out

I would have knocked the Audi nob out

thats what the guy in the video thought. Look how that turned out 🙂

Any lawmen reading this answer this? If someone is screaming abuse and you hit him or her, would it be treated differently to someone cocking an eye at you in a jauntily questioning manner and you hitting him or her? Would you be arrested for the same offence and just treated differently when it came to sentencing or would you be arrested for a different offence?

Why was the driver beside the cyclist,oh yes because the cyclist moved to be beside him...what happened next,oh yes the cyclist raced after him banged on his window and started swearing at him. You don't seem to have watched your own video. Go on,if you will not answer a q that might sit uncomfortably with you...why is it not a useful question? Straw man..oh the ironing!
As stated,driver arse,cyclist arse.

Hang on! its you getting punched,isn't it?

Must be crap being you,jumpy whenever you see a white car...

Do you understand what a strawman is, duckman? Try again without any...

If you're such an expert on the video, why don't you point out where the cyclist bangs on the window? Was it the cyclist who forced the driver into the ASL box? Was the cyclist wrong to tell the driver he shouldn't be in the ASL box (for which he had to stand next to the car)? It's not a useful question because we're not discussing whether the cyclist might have been better ignoring the situation - I've already agreed with that - the discussion is over whether what the cyclist does justifies anything the driver/passenger do.

Though I could just sum up the throwing your own arguments back at you thing by pointing out that the driver deserved to be shouted at.

I'm with you on this one duckman. Maybe the **** on the bike did have the right to go into the asl, why did he feel the need to actually do it without thinking "I don't really need to be here other than to be in front of the nasty car" - to me it is typical of the sort of militant cyclists we see on the roads every day. Yeah, the guy in the car was a bit of a tool in the way he responded but it wasnt necessary for mr militant cyclist to be a smart ar5e and move to the side of the car to point this out. In fact, if he had the time to do this and in effect put himself into a less than safe situation then the moral high ground of plonking himself in the asl directly in front of the car is lost. The ensuing chase etc was entirely unnecessary especially as he went out of his way to do so. They were both tools, the assault was unnecessary, as was the banging and shouting at the car occupants.
On another note - aracers list of the benefits of cycling included "being more chilled and nicer to people" - the tool on the bike in this clip doesn't really back this up - in fact over 50% of users on this forum blow that fact out of the water.

Aha,finally an answer;you do think the cyclists reaction was justified. See,that wasn't that hard was it? And after you throwing in the women in short skirts straw man as well. It does somewhat colour my perception of your view of what is proportional. I think the cyclist,while l do not condone violence,contributed hugely to the situation that developed. As you have stated he was justified in his actions,l see little point in continuing to go round in circles with you.

typical of the sort of militant cyclists we see on the roads every day

Just watched the video again - the cyclist turned round and went back the way he had come - where had he intended to go? Was he going to turn right at the first junction? Signs are for ahead only.
And no-one has yet mentioned that just prior to the car moving off after the assault another tool on a bike can be clearly seen jumping the red light - is this ok in the stw hive or do the militants choose to not see this?
A lot of double standards here methinks

Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation or would he actually have been safer to remain in the line of other cyclist waiting on the left hand side of the road.
Duckman - I agree with you that the cyclist definitely contributed a lot to the situation he found himself in. I dont condone the assault but I also know where you are coming from re your earlier statement about growing up in an area where you got a smack if you said something out of line.

[quote=duckman opined]Aha,finally an answer;you do think the cyclists reaction was justified. See,that wasn't that hard was it?

No - which is why I said that 7 or 8 pages ago and several times since in one way or another. Sorry you missed that - though that didn't seem to be the question you were asking either - do you still want an answer to that?

And after you throwing in the women in short skirts straw man as well.

You still don't seem to understand what a straw man is, or get the point of that comparison.

[quote=buzz1024 opined]And no-one has yet mentioned that just prior to the car moving off after the assault another tool on a bike can be clearly seen jumping the red light - is this ok in the stw hive or do the militants choose to not see this?
A lot of double standards here methinks

I've not discussed it as it's irrelevant - and the issue has been discussed here ad nauseum (personally I tend not to get involved).

[quote=buzz1024 opined]Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation

Well it was illegal... oh, you mean the cyclist, not the tool in the car.

I agree with you that the cyclist definitely contributed a lot to the situation he found himself in. I dont condone the assault but I also know where you are coming from re your earlier statement about growing up in an area where you got a smack if you said something out of line.

Which I think puts you a step or two more reasonable than duckman. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting the cyclist didn't contribute - simply that that doesn't mean he deserved it, or that he actually did anything fundamentally wrong. The fact there are places where people go round thumping other people for saying the wrong thing doesn't make that correct behaviour anywhere. Notably, as mentioned above, both the driver and the passenger broke the law, the cyclist didn't.

[quote=buzz1024 ]Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation or would he actually have been safer to remain in the line of other cyclist waiting on the left hand side of the road.
Why do [i]you[/i] think the ASL is the full width of the lane?

ASLs. The first couple of people who arrived stayed on the left. Good idea. But soon more people arrive, and so they began to spread out across the ASL- also good idea. Because the alternative is you end up staggered back up the cycle lane, which is generally the absolute worst place to be when the traffic starts moving again- if you want to maximise your chances of getting left-hooked, go for it though.

(these things are situational of course but this is the "default" if you like.)

buzz1024 - Member

Just watched the video again - the cyclist turned round and went back the way he had come - where had he intended to go? Was he going to turn right at the first junction?

He sort of staggers off to the right. Trying to read anything into this would be absurd. Would you just happilly carry on as you were, immediately after being assaulted, or would you go somewhere the guy who whacked you isn't, and sort yourself out?

Here's what TFL have to say about ASLs.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic. ASL facilities provide a second stop line in advance of the regular line. Between the two lines is an area (ASL reservoir) which is reserved for cyclists.

Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

[quote=scotroutes opined]Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

I don't think he displayed a suitable level of deference to the superior people driving cars, and got in their way, thus preventing them from spending so much time waiting for all the cyclists to come back past them at the next set of lights. I'm assuming that's it anyway. Well something about getting angry too - I think when a car nearly runs you over you're supposed to stay totally calm and ignore it.

Because it is the job of the police to enforce the asl not the cyclist,
Especially in such an aggressive manor.

If the cyclist had gone through a red light and a motorist chased him down and started screaming insults at him, pointing out the error of his ways would that be ok,

The car did not nearly run him over.

[quote=chip ]Because it is the job of the police to enforce the asl not the cyclist,
Was the cyclist right to take up position in front of the car?

Er, try watching the video again, you might notice that he is pretty calm and not at all aggressive when explaining the ASL issue. The anger comes after the driver almost runs him over. Yes it would be fine for a driver to shout at a cyclist if the cyclist endangered him in the same way - let me know when you find a video showing a cyclist doing that to a driver.

I'm also not quite sure why he shouldn't try and stop cars from using the ASL he is in when there isn't any obvious police presence to enforce it.

[quote=chip opined]The car did not nearly run him over.

How much closer did it need to be for that to be the case? The cyclist certainly thinks it did. Is it unreasonable for the cyclist to get angry when he thinks a car nearly runs him over, or does he have to check with you first whether the car really did nearly run him over?

scotroutes - Member
Here's what TFL have to say about ASLs.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic. ASL facilities provide a second stop line in advance of the regular line. Between the two lines is an area (ASL reservoir) which is reserved for cyclists.
Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

bobbed when he should of weaved ?

The cyclist didn't do anything fundamentally wrong - he was entitled to be in the asl and the idiot in the car should not have repositioned the car. From my point of view he was perfectly entitled to comment re the car moving in to the asl. From that point onwards though the cyclist was not justified in his response - the car did not strike him or put him in any danger by moving off when the lights changed even though he was close to it. He may have believed it to be too close but the subsequent chase and verbals was out of order and of course he didn't deserve to be assaulted but personally I feel that his actions did contribute to the outcome.
Personally I would not have done anything different other than not chasing or gobbing off to the driver - it's just not worth it and I'm a big bloke that can take care of himself.

The driver entered the asl (wrongly ) clearly positioning his car well wide of the cyclists in order to pass safely.
It was the cyclist need to berate the driver. And moving closer to do so that put him anywhere near the car.

And if he had carried on about his business instead of electing him self a member of the asl police the driver would have probably pulled away in a more subdued fashion.

@buzz1024, I was right - you are a lot more reasonable than duckman. I think the only difference in our perspectives is that I reckon it was justifiable for him to respond based on his perception that the car put him in danger, even if it didn't. Though I can accept that other people have a different perspective on that.

[quote=chip opined]And if he had carried on about his business instead of electing him self a member of the asl police the driver would have probably pulled away in a more subdued fashion.

😆 - yes clearly that was the intention when he pulled into the ASL box 😆

Why not, he positioned himself well wide of the cyclists, why would you think he would have sped of like a cock,
Because he has a flash car.

If his intentions where to pass the cyclist close and fast I doubt he would have gone as wide as he did.

Four observations:

Cyclist - idiot (but didn't do anything wrong in ASL)
Motorist - idiot
Passenger - thug
Aracer - idiot

organdonor - Member

Four observations:

Cyclist - idiot (but didn't do anything wrong in ASL)
Motorist - idiot
Passenger - thug
Aracer - idiot

I particularly agree with the last observation. This guy clearly has a very warped way of looking at things.

The cyclist CLEARLY did not almost get run over.

Mr driver thinks he's too special to wait where he should, mr bike thinks it's ok to gets sweary and shouty mr passenger thinks it's ok to start swinging..
It's a collision of arseholes..

[quote=chief9000 opined]I particularly agree with the last observation. This guy clearly has a very warped way of looking at things.

Indeed - how wrong of me not to agree that the cyclist deserved it, or that they are just as bad as each other (despite the law agreeing with me).

I'd still like to know how close the car has to be to nearly run the cyclist over. Or indeed who I need to check with to find out if a car nearly runs me over before I'm allowed to get angry about it - who is the official authority on here?

Oh, and thanks for the ad homs - that does at least make it clear the level of the argument against me.

Driver = impatient and commited a minor rt offence but failed to endanger anyone
Cyclist = Complete bellend whose inappropriate response meant he deserved a good pasting in my opinion.

This forum is so polarised sometimes. If you strapped a bike under Charles Manson folk on here would be claiming he was a misunderstood soul who was a victim of circumstance 🙄

<adds graffalocrumble to list of people who think it's reasonable to use violence>

Indeed - how wrong of me not to agree that the cyclist deserved it, or that they are just as bad as each other (despite the law agreeing with me).

You've decided that the law agrees with you. That's a bit different.

If someone came up to me and started shouting and swearing in my face then the chances are that I would put them on their arse. If that means I make your list the so be it.

[quote=grum opined]You've decided that the law agrees with you. That's a bit different.

Based on reading the relevant laws and applying them to the situation - not something I think those who suggest the cyclist deserved it have done (it's really quite straightforward if you do read the laws). Though it appears I'm a bit special for doing that. Oh, and information on who the police have arrested and charged.

@gruffalocrumble yep, you definitely make the list. There are other ways to deal with situations apart from resorting to your fists.

Oh, and information on who the police have arrested and charged.

Yes because if there's one thing all these threads have shown it's that the law is always applied consistently and correctly.

The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal. Yes, he should not have been there but if the cyclist gets that wound up about that then he really shouldn't be cycling in London.

And he did not nearly get run over.

The cyclist inflamed a situation necessarily and that was the result. He needs to learn to pick his arguments more carefully

I'll give you that, grum. Though my first point still applies - it's not exactly hard to find out that you can't claim self defence for punching somebody who is shouting at you, or that the law sees assault as more serious than disorderly behaviour (even ignoring the statutory defence, I can't find anything which matches this incident in the sentencing guidelines - the lowest level offence is "Shouting, causing disturbance for some minutes").

@franksinatra - it's been said before so many times - the cyclist didn't get wound up about the ASL infringement, and how close does the car have to get to nearly run him over?

The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal. Yes, he should not have been there but if the cyclist gets that wound up about that then he really shouldn't be cycling in London.

This.

If we'd seen a video of a cyclist running a red light, a car driver telling him off - then the car driver chasing after him and angrily getting up in his face shouting at him - wonder what the response from aracer would be if the cyclist responded with a punch? I think I know what he's going to claim but I think I know the reality.

The stuff about 'nearly getting run over' is way OTT.

I'll give you that, grum. Though my first point still applies - it's not exactly hard to find out that you can't claim self defence for punching somebody who is shouting at you,

Unless you think you are in danger. I'd agree that probably doesn't apply to someone in a car though.

[quote=franksinatra ]The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic.

When I look at that video I do wonder where the car was going to make off for once he'd pulled out alongside the cyclist given there was a queue of traffic (including a truck) heading towards him when the lights changed. As he pulls away, he has to cut fully back into the lane in order to avoid it.

I do enjoy the argument that the motorist conscientiously positioned himself into the ASL to be able to drag-race away with maximum safety, and the cyclist jeopardised this public-spirited act by moving. After all, the motorist urgently had to go and get stuck at the next red light, in exactly the same position he would have occupied had he, you know, obeyed the frickin law and not been a zoomer.

List,really.
The law is the law and if you chose to break it then you should face the consequences.
But I do not find the passengers reaction to the cyclists as outrageous as I do the cyclists to the driver.

And I know punching some one is rightly against the law but some people do deserve it sometimes regardless.

Now at what point do you think it is ok to hit someone.

At someone spilling your pint, maybe not,
Someone cornering your girlfriend at a party and groping her, defiantly. Despite the fact it's against the law.

I am not saying he deserved to get punched but I am not surprised he did. Because you can't behave like that and not expect to come unstuck sooner or later.

I hope I would have apologised. But if he then carried on, I hope I would have ignored him.
But his behavior was not reasonable.

[quote=grum opined]The stuff about 'nearly getting run over' is way OTT.

Well it was the perception of that which wound the cyclist up - is that so hard to understand? For your analogy to make sense, the cyclist would have to come within inches of the car driver (not surrounded by a metal box) at speed, before the car driver chases after him (in his metal box with the capability of inflicting far more injury than the cyclist can with his bike).

The thing is with those saying "oh, but he wasn't nearly run over", he was only a few inches away from serious injury, because that's what happens when a car hits you.

As for my "claimed response", I've been very consistent in my assertion that a punch is an inappropriate response to being shouted at and that the law agrees with that, I've mentioned that I've not punched anybody in over 25 years and I've never ever defended a cyclist who's punched somebody, in any discussion on here or anywhere else. My argument is about the proportionality of the responses, not the mode of transport they're using. I challenge you to find anywhere I've wavered from that position. You can make your own mind up what I'd think of a cyclist who punched a motorist who was simply shouting at them - though to be honest I don't care what you think, I've set out my position and stuck to it.

The cyclist might have made his point more succinctly if he'd simply pulled back in front of the Audi at the 2nd ASL (though the video suggests he had no intention of even going that far along the road)

You can claim provocation if you end up killing the guy - or reduction from murder to manslaughter (or something along those lines).

If you go around behaving however you want believing that the "law" will protect you from the big bad world, then you're on to a bit of a loser.

Well it was the perception of that which wound the cyclist up

I may have missed a few pages in the middle of the thread, but do we have a direct quote from the cyclist to say he got wound up because car nearly ran him over, NOT because car drove into the ASL alongside him and sped off?

[quote=chip opined]The law is the law and if you chose to break it then you should face the consequences.
But I do not find the passengers reaction to the cyclists as outrageous as I do the cyclists to the driver.

Well make your mind up. Do you agree with the law or don't you?

I hope I would have apologised.

If you were the driver? So you accept the cyclist actually had a point?

So to clarify.

If any **** cyclist has the cheek to pull into the ASL in front of me I should pull around them into the ASL box, accelerate away when the lights change and smack him if he doesn't like it.

[quote=deadlydarcy]do we have a direct quote from the cyclist to say he got wound up because car nearly ran him over

I think it went something like

"you ****ing prick you nearly ran over my foot" (let's see what the swear filter does with that).

Oh right, I've just had a look...

It doesn't look to me like he nearly ran him over.