Dangerous driving complaint and response.
spindrift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
This was their response:
complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
approached him, shouting and swearing.
As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
upset caused.
This concludes our investigation.
AndyC
"spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a30696f-4bca-46fb...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
Having watched the video a few times over I observe the following.
[1] At the point which Mr Angry Cyclist was overtaken, the road was wide
enough to be overtaken. If he *really* did not want to be overtaken at that
point then perhaps he should have been further away from the kerb. That will
block them overtaking. If however he wanted to be courteous he might have
moved a little closer to the kerb (there were no parked cars). And then
moved out before reaching the pinch-point.
[2] Slapping a car as it overtakes is unwise.
[3] Shouting abuse at the driver probably does more harm than good.
While I can understand the frustrations of this cyclist (and cyclists in
general) I don't actually think that his method of educating motorists
actually does any good. All it does is make him appear aggressive, bitter,
twisted and perhaps ought not be on the road at all.
Standards of driving are generally pretty poor. Cyclists are generally not
respected as they should be. The combination of the two means that cyclists
need to ride defensively. Blocking overtaking traffic when it is not
necessary, slapping cars and hurling abuse is asking for trouble.
Shoot me down! but I am sure I am not the only cyclist who thinks this.
pk
news:3a30696f-4bca-46fb...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>
> prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
>
It is not clear from the video if the cyclist indicated he was moving across
to "claim the lane". I always do and indicate palm backwards "stay back",
but I see others simply move across sometimes to the consternation of the
following cars.
pk
Paul - xxx mobile
> This, not me by the way:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>
> We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
> letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
> process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
> space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
> He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
> his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
> approached him, shouting and swearing.
> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
> his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
> driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
> upset caused.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, IMHO.
There seemed to be plenty room for an overtake where it was done ...
the overtake was finished before the pinch point was reached, so
reaching out and slapping the windscreen/roof was completely
unnecessary.
The car driver could have left more room for the cyclist, it looks like
he's still a foot or so inside the white line. Ideally he could have
waited, I guess, but then he probably knows about the pinch point, just
as the cyclist says he does, and parked cars later, so wanted to get
past before possible further obstructions.
It's unfortunate that the cyclist decided to move out way before the
pinch point, but didn't move out far enough to stop overtakes.
It could, perhaps, also be argued that if he hadn't moved out quite so
early this would never have happened at all.
As I say, six of one, half a dozen of the other, edging towards the
cyclist being more at fault than the taxi driver.
My opinion .... ;)
--
Paul - xxx ... somewhere else.
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
spindrift
him. It's not even as if the cabbie made progress, the cyclist would
have caught him at the next junction. This driver is going to smash
into something/someone, his boss or the representative of the
licencing authority is basically calling the cyclist a liar and a
thug, there was no swearing at all.
There was no swerve and even if there was the cyclist has a right
enshrined in case law to wobble and deviate from his or her path. This
means that overtaking a cyclist safely means that even if the cyclist
toppled sideways the overtaking vehicle would not run him or her over.
Look at the clip again, the driver basically bullies his way through
and the cyclist understandably wards off danger with an open hand,
there is no swerve whatsoever, the letter is a bare-faced lie.
spindrift
was safe to pass" is exceptionally weak wording.
Regardless of his feeling, the video shows him overtaking in the face
of oncoming traffic. The Highway Code is clear on when and where
overtaking is or isn't a good plan, and into oncoming traffic is
solidly in the "isn't" category.
So he can feel whatever he likes, but the expected standard of
driving says otherwise
Tom Crispin
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
This seems to be a clear case of a motorist not being aware of the
needs of cyclists.
Further evidence, if further evidence is required, that everyone
should complete a Bikeability Level 3 course before being allowed to
start driving lessons unless there are good medical reasons for not
being able to ride a bike.
Should I offer to sell my domain, britishschoolofcycling.com to the
British School of Motoring for £10,000,000? Or has the credit crunch
now devalued my domain to 0.00000001p
Paul - xxx mobile
> I think this is the area to focus on. "Although the driver feels it
> was safe to pass" is exceptionally weak wording.
OK, the driver felt it was safe. You don't feel it was safe .. I feel
it was possibly safe ... so what? No-one got injured, IMHO the cyclist
wasn't in any 'real' danger, indeed there was a fair bit of room. I
doubt I would have overtaken him there, but I also doubt I would have
ridden how the cyclist did. Like I said earlier, 50-50 IMHO.
> Regardless of his feeling, the video shows him overtaking in the face
> of oncoming traffic.
He wasn't over the white line, but I agree it wasn't an optimal
overtake.
> The Highway Code is clear on when and where
> overtaking is or isn't a good plan, and into oncoming traffic is
> solidly in the "isn't" category.
I quite agree.
> So he can feel whatever he likes, but the expected standard of
> driving says otherwise
I quite agree.
What I disagree with is the level of danger the cyclist felt he was in,
which he hardly mitigated by his actions.
Paul - xxx mobile
> The driver overtook recklessly, you can hear the oncoming car hooting
> him. It's not even as if the cabbie made progress, the cyclist would
> have caught him at the next junction. This driver is going to smash
> into something/someone, his boss or the representative of the
> licencing authority is basically calling the cyclist a liar and a
> thug, there was no swearing at all.
Hpw do you know it was the following car hooting? How do you know he
didn't make progress? How do you know he'd have been caught at the
next junction? How do you know he's ... yada yada yada .....
The audio isn't good enough to tell whether there was swearing or not,
well, I can't hear any, but then I wasn't getting shouted at either!
> There was no swerve and even if there was the cyclist has a right
> enshrined in case law to wobble and deviate from his or her path. This
> means that overtaking a cyclist safely means that even if the cyclist
> toppled sideways the overtaking vehicle would not run him or her over.
> Look at the clip again, the driver basically bullies his way through
> and the cyclist understandably wards off danger with an open hand,
> there is no swerve whatsoever, the letter is a bare-faced lie.
So, was the rider hurt? Did the world stop and stare? What really
happened?
A car came a little closer than comfortable to a cyclist who complained
about it and nothing came of it .. tough shit.
spindrift
IIRC, a cyclist was once nearly side swiped by a driver passing way
too close at speed. The cyclist remonstrated and the driver responded
"I didn't hit you, did I?"
The cyclist unclipped his D lock and swung it at the driver's head.
The shocked driver asked what the hell he thought he was doing.
"I didn't hit you, did I?" said the cyclist.
Paul - xxx mobile
> there was no swearing at all.
Just listened again on a different computer .. the cyclist, as the
driver opens the window down shouts "What the fuck was that ..." I
didn't listen to the rest as that classes as swearing to me, so who's
lying?
Clive George
news:6uj1g0F...@mid.individual.net...
> A car came a little closer than comfortable to a cyclist who complained
> about it and nothing came of it .. tough shit.
It's indicative of a wider problem.
A lot of road crashes are a result of lots of people taking little risks
like this one. Most of the time they get away with it, but when they don't,
mess results.
Trouble is, people don't see that as a problem ("I didn't hit you, what are
you complaining about?"), despite the fact that due to the numbers involved,
those tiny risks add up to quite a rate of carnage.
_
spindrift
Agree entirely, drivers like that have no idea how stupidly reckless
their actions are.
Adam Lea
>
> OK, the driver felt it was safe. You don't feel it was safe .. I feel
> it was possibly safe ... so what?
The problem is that drivers are somewhat shut away from the outside world in
their cars. They cannot feel wind forces which might be strong enough to
blow a cyclist off course. They don't experience the recessed drains and
other impefections in the road surface that cyclists need to steer around,
but cars can cope with easily. Drivers are also not aware of the turbulent
wake produced by their vehicle which can buffet a cyclist as they pass. Thus
if drivers themselves have never cycled then they are effectively making
safety decisions based on incomplete information. It is this that leads to
these sorts of close shaves, where the driver, isolated from the outside
environment, thinks they are not putting the cyclist in danger when in fact
they are.
> No-one got injured,
this time!
Next time might be a different matter.
> IMHO the cyclist
> wasn't in any 'real' danger, indeed there was a fair bit of room. I
> doubt I would have overtaken him there, but I also doubt I would have
> ridden how the cyclist did. Like I said earlier, 50-50 IMHO.
>
I agree that the cyclist should have moved further out.
mr jones
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Excellent response by the taxi company.
He wanted to "discourage overtaking" - why?
does he expect a queue of traffic to accumulate behind him.
_
What, he was a driver too? Kept the D lock in the boot then?
rufus
You need to look at it again.
I do not think it is the oncoming car which hoots - why would it - the
taxi is not over the line - it is the taxi hooting at the cyclist.
"What the fuck was that" from the cyclist clearly sounds like swearing
to me.
Is it just cyclists who drive aggressively who feel the need to video
their journeys?
A knob-head cyclist giving us all a bad name.
spindrift
hang on, you defend the driver but a cyclist who carries out a similar
act is a nutter who should get off the roads?
Do you recall what the HC says about overtaking cyclists? In what way
did the driver comply with those rules?
_
> On Jan 31, 2:18 am, _ <w...@prettyboy.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 1:44 am, _ <w...@prettyboy.com> wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> "so what? No-one got injured"
>>>>> IIRC, a cyclist was once nearly side swiped by a driver passing way
>>>>> too close at speed. The cyclist remonstrated and the driver responded
>>>>> "I didn't hit you, did I?"
>>>>> The cyclist unclipped his D lock and swung it at the driver's head.
>>>>> The shocked driver asked what the hell he thought he was doing.
>>>>> "I didn't hit you, did I?" said the cyclist.
>>>> Sounds like a nutter who needs taking off the road to me...
>>> Agree entirely, drivers like that have no idea how stupidly reckless
>>> their actions are.
>> What, he was a driver too? Kept the D lock in the boot then?
>
> hang on, you defend the driver but a cyclist who carries out a similar
> act is a nutter who should get off the roads?
>
twisted, anger management issues. A positive danger, then. The driver
*may* have made an error (the posts in this thread have it about 50/50,
and remember this is a cycling group). The cyclist deliberately
endangered the driver, and attempted to intimidate him on purpose. The
two are not remotely comparable, in my view.
spindrift
driver had held his hands up and said yes, it was a needless, reckless
overtake then that probably would have been the end of it. The letter
shows that the licencing authority are as ignorant of the HC as the
driver, ignorant of the case law that designates a safe passing
distance for cyclists and ignorant of what constitutes safe driving,
which, for a professional driver, is inexcusable.
The driver had a chance to say sorry for what he did, the fact he
denies that passing a cyclist close enough for the cyclist to touch
the car is dangerous shows that he ought not be on the roads. There is
no way during a safe overtake that a cyclist would be able to reach
out and touch the car, the driver was acting as if the cyclist wasn't
there and to prevent being side swiped the cyclist took action to
bring to the attention of an idiot driver the fact that he was there
and in danger.
spindrift
experienced cyclist or not he chose to overtake dangerously where it
was his duty to hold back until he could overtake safely, no matter
how irritating and pointless he thought Mag's road position.
A lot of drivers(especially 'professional' drivers)want cycles out of
their way in the gutter or preferably off the roads altogether. It's
only by bringing driverIt's only by bringing drivers like this to task
that they might start to consider driving with a little more
tolerance.
s like this to task that they might start to consider driving with a
little more tolorance.
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=26922&page=4
_
> The cops have acted on previous video evidence of this kind.
I think shoving this tape under plods nose is FAR more likely to result
in a chat to the cyclist about criminal damage and public order
offences, dont you?
> If the
> driver had held his hands up and said yes, it was a needless, reckless
> overtake then that probably would have been the end of it.
When confronted by a red-faced yob spitting abuse at him? I think he
deserves a medal for taking the massively sensible step of 'walking
away' in the face of such abuse, and not getting out to remonstrate with
the abusive cyclist.
> The letter
> shows that the licencing authority are as ignorant of the HC as the
> driver, ignorant of the case law that designates a safe passing
> distance for cyclists and ignorant of what constitutes safe driving,
> which, for a professional driver, is inexcusable.
>
If you break the HC, intentionally or otherwise, and you are observed by
the police who then pull you over, do you think you should be subject to
spitting abuse?
> The driver had a chance to say sorry for what he did, the fact he
> denies that passing a cyclist close enough for the cyclist to touch
> the car is dangerous shows that he ought not be on the roads.
So a driver who calms a potentially dangerous confrontation by moving
away from it is someone who oughtn't to be on the road, but the nutter
cyclist who assaults the vehicle with his fist and the occupants with
abuse is actually a saint in shining armour? What a bizarre world you
inhabit.
> There is
> no way during a safe overtake that a cyclist would be able to reach
> out and touch the car,
I dispute that - on occasions it may well be. If I see peds on the
pavement of a DC I use at night, I'll pull out into the outer lane when
passing them at 60ish. On the other hand, at slow speed in queuing
traffic I have no problem in passing cyclists within a couple of feet.
Put it this way, using their famous 'filtering' technique, a cyclist is
happy to pass ME within touching distance, how is it different the other
way round?
> the driver was acting as if the cyclist wasn't
> there and to prevent being side swiped the cyclist took action to
> bring to the attention of an idiot driver the fact that he was there
> and in danger.
>
The only thing he was in danger of was losing his fragile temper, and he
patently did.
francis
If it is not safe to overtake a cyclist close enough for the cyclist
to touch the car, why is it safe for a cyclist to overtake a car close
enough for the car driver to touch the cyclist?
Francis
spindrift
granted to an employer who lies about what happened on film!
There was no swearing. Magna's hand was open, as it says clearly in
the text and in the images. The driver stops in the middle of the road
after being warned by an oncoming driver that his actions are
dangerous. This wasn't filtering, it was passing at speed dangerously
close and then lying about it.
Taxi drivers can be considerate, many are stupidly dangerous, a
Scottish cabbie was recently convicted for driving onto the pavement
to attack a cyclist:
http://triathlonscotland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9742&sid=ed0fc2a3021c98e6a129f85a405b946d
A London cabbie went to prison for killing a cyclist deliberately:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/robert-hanks-the-cycling-column-468874.html
You can see clearly the cyclist didn't move off his line. The cabbie
lied, and the licencing authority lied too- their version bears no
relation to what you see in the video. They had a chance, they blew
it, the cabbie needs to be taken off the roads, he won't get insurance
or another cabbie job with a conviction.
rufus
I would hate to think that these cyclists who film their every move
are actually agents provocateurs.
Anyone else noticed how many seem to be serial innocent parties when
they claim or try to claim money from the driver who hit them - purely
due to the drivers poor driving ;-)
_
> At the very least, the council ought to re-consider the licence
> granted to an employer who lies about what happened on film!
>
is more at risk from the law should this tape be provided them - the
cabbie or the cyclist?
> There was no swearing.
"What the fuck was that" isn't swearing?
> Magna's hand was open, as it says clearly in
> the text and in the images.
The text was written by the cyclist, so is hardly likely to be
objectively honest. I've watched the video several times and its
inconclusive about open handed or closed. The issue is moot anyway - he
still assaulted the vehicle.
> The driver stops in the middle of the road
> after being warned by an oncoming driver that his actions are
> dangerous.
Is that a fact? It looks to me that he stopped because some lout thumped
his car?
> This wasn't filtering, it was passing at speed dangerously
> close and then lying about it.
>
Where's the "lie"? He said he felt safe to pass. How is that a lie?
> Taxi drivers can be considerate, many are stupidly dangerous, a
> Scottish cabbie was recently convicted for driving onto the pavement
> to attack a cyclist:
>
> http://triathlonscotland.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9742&sid=ed0fc2a3021c98e6a129f85a405b946d
>
How about I post the URL of a cyclist who deliberately hit a pedestrian?
Would that be any more or less relevant than your link? Its not this
case, so I'm struggling to work out why you posted it.
> A London cabbie went to prison for killing a cyclist deliberately:
>
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/robert-hanks-the-cycling-column-468874.html
>
As above.
>
> You can see clearly the cyclist didn't move off his line. The cabbie
> lied, and the licencing authority lied too- their version bears no
> relation to what you see in the video. They had a chance, they blew
> it, the cabbie needs to be taken off the roads, he won't get insurance
> or another cabbie job with a conviction.
>
Great, so you want *at best* an error on the part of the driver to cost
his livelihood, but the cyclist who is *clearly* seen breaking the law
should get off scot free? Again, quite bizarre...
>
>
>
>
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure you have an example of this happening and aren't just making
it up? Nobody's claiming money from anyone, don't be daft.
rufus
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This, not me by the way:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
If you look at the other videos by the cyclist on the same page -
there is one called "Undertaking on a Roundabout"
It appears to me that this cyclist really is a nutter - why should the
taxi not "undertake" in those circumstances.
Note it is a taxi - it looks like the cyclist has a thing against
them.
It is worth looking at some of his other videos.
Notice the "Must overtake mentality" one where he tells the driver
"you are on camera" after calling him an arsehole.
He then tells the driver he will be on u-tube - takes a close up of
the number plate - and laughs to himself out loud.
This bloke really is a nutter - looks like he intentionally
antagonises people just to get some footage - perhaps hoping that the
motorist will do something they will regret.
spindrift
broke the law, you may not like the law but there you go.
Highway Code:
167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
users.
108
Cossing the line is only lawful if overtaking a pedal cycle, horse or
road maintenance vehicle, when the cycle, horse or maintenance vehicle
is travelling less than 10mph
188
Leave the same room for a bicycle as for a car.
That's three road safety guidleines breached there.
A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to wobble.
Drivers should have more control over their vehicles than cyclists who
are dependent upon physical strength and effort to pilot their
machines.
http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/thetests/hplesson.htm
I remember my driving instructor explaining that cyclists may have to
alter their course to avoid broken glass, potholes, bust drain covers
etc etc. Had magnatom deviated from his course to avoid road debris
whilst the cabbie was bullying his way recklessly past he'd be dead.
AndyC
"francis" <francis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dada1fe8-08cb-4af8...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
If it is not safe to overtake a cyclist close enough for the cyclist
to touch the car, why is it safe for a cyclist to overtake a car close
enough for the car driver to touch the cyclist?
------------------------------------------
It's down to size, speed and speed differential.
A larger vehicle needs to give more space than a small vehicle does, because
they need a larger margin for error. Faster moving vehicles need to give
more space than slow moving vehicles to allow for a greater margin for
error. The greater the speed differential, the greater the risk of
collision.
HTH
_
> What you or the idiot cabbie feel is irrelevant, thank God. The cabbie
> broke the law, you may not like the law but there you go.
>
> Highway Code:
>
> 167
> DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
> users.
>
> 108
> Cossing the line is only lawful if overtaking a pedal cycle, horse or
> road maintenance vehicle, when the cycle, horse or maintenance vehicle
> is travelling less than 10mph
>
> 188
> Leave the same room for a bicycle as for a car.
>
not the law. Sorry. HTH.
> That's three road safety guidleines breached there.
>
> A High Court judge once ruled that a cyclist is entitled to wobble.
> Drivers should have more control over their vehicles than cyclists who
> are dependent upon physical strength and effort to pilot their
> machines.
>
> http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/thetests/hplesson.htm
>
> I remember my driving instructor explaining that cyclists may have to
> alter their course to avoid broken glass, potholes, bust drain covers
> etc etc. Had magnatom deviated from his course to avoid road debris
> whilst the cabbie was bullying his way recklessly past he'd be dead.
Feel free to ignore the rest of the points raised and instead stick to
your "the drivers a nutter, the bikers a saint" monologue.
mr softy
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>You can see clearly the cyclist didn't move off his line. The cabbie
>lied, and the licencing authority lied too- their version bears no
>relation to what you see in the video. They had a chance, they blew
>it, the cabbie needs to be taken off the roads, he won't get insurance
>or another cabbie job with a conviction.
You're obviously a nutter as well as the piss-poor cyclist who took
the video.
"There was no swearing"? - really - what about ""What the fuck was
that"
If you look at some of the other videos which the knobhead has on
utube - you will see that he swears at drivers quite a lot -
"Arsehole" seems to be common.
I hope he doesn't bang on cars, swear, etc just to annoy the
motorists.
Clive George
news:cjs8o45a0qssnp820...@4ax.com...
Judith, how about picking a nym and sticking to it, eh? Your relentless
shifting is the mark of a nutter rather than the nice sensible person you
feel yourself to be.
_
advisable passing cyclists when doing 60 on an NSL dual carraigeway. But
back to this example, lets say the cab was doing, say, 25ish. After all,
he's only just come off a r'bout, passing a bike, etc. And he stops very
quickly. I think that speeds about fair. So, passing 'close' at 25 is a
wrong'un, according to the cyclist in question and also spindrift.
Now, cue the queue, if you'll excuse the pun. Car stationary or nearly
so, cyclist moving along the outside. That'd be 25mph ish, wouldn't it?
And thats close enough to hit the cyclist if you opened the door? So,
how come the difference then?
judith
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What you or the idiot cabbie feel is irrelevant, thank God. The cabbie
>broke the law, you may not like the law but there you go.
>
>Highway Code:
>
>167
>DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road
>users.
>
>108
>Cossing the line is only lawful if overtaking a pedal cycle, horse or
>road maintenance vehicle, when the cycle, horse or maintenance vehicle
>is travelling less than 10mph
108? = Highways Agency Traffic Officers have powers to stop vehicles
on most motorways
The bit you have quoted appears to be from 129 - and you missed off
the bit which says "Double white lines where the line nearest you is
solid"
I couldn't see the double white line in the video - where was it?
You must think people are as stupid as you - did you go to the
Chapman school of fuckwittery?
Sir Jeremy
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:36:34 -0800 (PST), spindrift
>
Like Spindrift from behind his computer, this cyclist goes out looking
for trouble. They both moan when they find it,but I'm really looking
forward to the video on you-tube when Magna meets someone really
unreasonable and gets his head-cam rammed up his arse
Paul - xxx mobile
> "so what? No-one got injured"
>
> IIRC, a cyclist was once nearly side swiped by a driver passing way
> too close at speed. The cyclist remonstrated and the driver responded
> "I didn't hit you, did I?"
>
> The cyclist unclipped his D lock and swung it at the driver's head.
> The shocked driver asked what the hell he thought he was doing.
>
> "I didn't hit you, did I?" said the cyclist.
So?
I notice you choose to ignore my reply to the lie you posted about the
cyclist not swearing.
--
Paul - xxx ... somewhere else.
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
francis
> AndyC wrote:
> > "francis" <francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I believe that was the point that was being made.
Francis
Paul - xxx mobile
> "Paul - xxx mobile" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6uj1g0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > A car came a little closer than comfortable to a cyclist who
> > complained about it and nothing came of it .. tough shit.
>
> It's indicative of a wider problem.
>
> A lot of road crashes are a result of lots of people taking little
> risks like this one. Most of the time they get away with it, but when
> they don't, mess results.
>
> Trouble is, people don't see that as a problem ("I didn't hit you,
> what are you complaining about?"), despite the fact that due to the
> numbers involved, those tiny risks add up to quite a rate of carnage.
Have a look at some of the other videos this particular cyclist has put
up on Youtube .. I suspect he actually enjoys getting in peoples way
and acting affronted when they react to his provocation and attitude.
He paints cyclists in a very bad colour, IMHO.
Adam Lea
"_" <wh...@prettyboy.com> wrote in message
news:SM_gl.5350$aJ3....@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> Now, cue the queue, if you'll excuse the pun. Car stationary or nearly so,
> cyclist moving along the outside. That'd be 25mph ish, wouldn't it?
Er, no it wouldn't. More like about 15 mph at most. Most utility cyclists
can't maintain 25 mph for any length of time with the exception of going
downhill or a stonking tailwind.
_
concede that might be the case. So, is it the suggestion that 15 mph
close is okay but 25 isn't? Or is it that a cyclist overtaking close is
fine at whatever speed, a car doing the same isn't?
Adam Lea
"mr jones" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:l0n8o4t24qu4fgelq...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:04:07 -0800 (PST), spindrift
> <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This, not me by the way:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>>
>>
>>This was their response:
>>
>>complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
>>
>>I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
>>reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
>>
>>We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
>>letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
>>process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
>>space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
>>
>>He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
>>his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
>>approached him, shouting and swearing.
>>
>> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
>>his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
>>driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
>>upset caused.
>>
>>
>>This concludes our investigation.
>
> Excellent response by the taxi company.
>
> He wanted to "discourage overtaking" - why?
>
> does he expect a queue of traffic to accumulate behind him.
>
In this case it was because of a narrowing in the road ahead. If the cyclist
rides in the gutter with a stream of traffic overtaking then the cyclist
will get diverted into the traffic stream by the pinch point. It is much
safer for the cyclist to enter the main traffic stream prior to the pinch
point (by negotiating with the traffic) so there is no convergence of
vehicle paths. Once past the constriction the cyclist can move back to the
left to let following traffic past if safe to do so (or if there is a large
queue forming then find a safe place to stop and let it past).
Nick L Plate
> "mr jones" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:l0n8o4t24qu4fgelq...@4ax.com...
>
> > He wanted to "discourage overtaking" - why?
>
> > does he expect a queue of traffic to accumulate behind him.
>
> In this case it was because of a narrowing in the road ahead. If the cyclist
> rides in the gutter with a stream of traffic overtaking then the cyclist
> will get diverted into the traffic stream by the pinch point. It is much
> safer for the cyclist to enter the main traffic stream prior to the pinch
> point (by negotiating with the traffic) so there is no convergence of
> vehicle paths. Once past the constriction the cyclist can move back to the
> left to let following traffic past if safe to do so (or if there is a large
> queue forming then find a safe place to stop and let it past).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The cyclist was reinforcing the purpose of the hazard line by his
position and hand signal, indicating a hazard. A specific hazard was
the oncoming high silver car(4x4) making the passage of a following
car between cyclist and said oncoming unsafe. A professional driver
should have been nowhere near the cyclist in this situation, even
baring the cyclists signal. Significant as well is that it was a
right hand bend and a following driver in a vehicle with right hand
drive could not see that it was safe to go because of oncoming
vehicles masking his view of the road. "what if a child had run out?"
was a common question a police officer would ask at the scene.
I think this cyclist does make mistakes, and he airs them. A taxi
driver is a professional driver and so should maintain the highest
standards of driving. A cyclist is permitted to ride without
knowledge or training. Although this cyclist seems to show little
courtesy towards car drivers, and can be deemed 'at fault', a taxi
driver should show due diligence and restraint, of which the driver
videoed did not. I believe this should be re-submitted to the council
and chief constable (or Scottish equivalent).
AndyC
Filtering close to stationary traffic on a bicycle at any more than about
10mph is (in my opinion) dangerous.
As a cyclist, I don't really mind traffic coming close IF their speed is not
that much greater. If I'm moving at 20ish and they overtake at 25ish I don't
mind them leaving a few feet width. BUT (and its a bit but) I really really
really don't like them overtaking at 40 or 50 with just a few feet to spare.
There seems to me to be a good argument of riding in the centre of the lane
to ensure that the traffic can't overtake at all, and once the traffic has
slowed to a safe (and often legal) speed pull over to the left to let them
pass.
Danny Colyer
> There seemed to be plenty room for an overtake where it was done ...
And yet the car was close enough for the cyclist to slap the roof.
> the overtake was finished before the pinch point was reached, so
> reaching out and slapping the windscreen/roof was completely
> unnecessary.
QED. I certainly don't think it's unnecessary to alert a driver to the
fact that he has just endangered your life.
> It's unfortunate that the cyclist decided to move out way before the
> pinch point, but didn't move out far enough to stop overtakes.
I don't believe he moved out too early, but I /do/ believe he didn't
move out far enough.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
spindrift
magna's had some tremendously positive responses to his video clips,
he prompted a Scotch bus company to carry "Cyclists beware" stickers
on their buses.
It's a tremendous weapon against numpty drivers like the cabbie who
doesn't know road safety in the clip, a head cam costs less than a ton
now and is an immediate, impartial witness to the kind of numpty
behaviour every cyclist encounters.
judithta...@privacy.net
I beg your pardon - what are you rabbiting about now.
Oh - I see that "Rufus" uses the same software as I do.
In fact there are something 9,000 posts using Agent - of which 7500
were via Berlin - 450 or so were from the fuckwit Chapman
They are not all me honest - perhaps Rufus is Chapman?
If I wanted to post under a different name and not be found out -
then I can assure you that I could (can;-)
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
judithta...@privacy.net
<web-...@andycrawford.net> wrote:
>
>"_" <wh...@prettyboy.com> wrote in message
>news:wv%gl.5359$aJ3....@newsfe23.ams2...
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> "_" <wh...@prettyboy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SM_gl.5350$aJ3....@newsfe23.ams2...
>>>> Now, cue the queue, if you'll excuse the pun. Car stationary or nearly
>>>> so, cyclist moving along the outside. That'd be 25mph ish, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Er, no it wouldn't. More like about 15 mph at most. Most utility cyclists
>>> can't maintain 25 mph for any length of time with the exception of going
>>> downhill or a stonking tailwind.
>> Fair enough - I've certainly never 'measured' them so I'll happily concede
>> that might be the case. So, is it the suggestion that 15 mph close is okay
>> but 25 isn't? Or is it that a cyclist overtaking close is fine at whatever
>> speed, a car doing the same isn't?
>
>Filtering close to stationary traffic on a bicycle at any more than about
>10mph is (in my opinion) dangerous.
I wonder if Anchor Lee and Ian Smith have a view:
Wanker Lee says that if you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive
than single file ones, you must have been intending to pass
dangerously close anyway.
And Ian Smith reckons that the Highway Code endorses filtering - he
just can't find where it does so.
judithta...@privacy.net
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 6:14 am, Danny Colyer <danny_col...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2009 11:46, Paul - xxx mobile wrote:
>>
>> > There seemed to be plenty room for an overtake where it was done ...
>>
>> And yet the car was close enough for the cyclist to slap the roof.
>>
>> > the overtake was finished before the pinch point was reached, so
>> > reaching out and slapping the windscreen/roof was completely
>> > unnecessary.
>>
>> QED. I certainly don't think it's unnecessary to alert a driver to the
>> fact that he has just endangered your life.
>>
>> > It's unfortunate that the cyclist decided to move out way before the
>> > pinch point, but didn't move out far enough to stop overtakes.
>>
>> I don't believe he moved out too early, but I /do/ believe he didn't
>> move out far enough.
>>
>> --
>> Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
>> Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
>> "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
>
>
>magna's had some tremendously positive responses to his video clips,
you've missed out "from cyclists"
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
--
"People tell me I'm unusual" - Guy Chapman
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
Safespeed member fantasises about killing a cyclist shock horror!
Is that official safespeed policy then?
It's a recurring theme among safespeed supporters, killing other road
users.
judithta...@privacy.net
<tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
-
>
>The cyclist was reinforcing the purpose of the hazard line by his
>position and hand signal, indicating a hazard.
What hand signal did the cyclist make?
<snip>
>I believe this should be re-submitted to the council
>and chief constable (or Scottish equivalent).
For what reason.
there is absolutely nothing in that video worth reporting to the
police - unless it is criminal damage by the cyclists when he thumped
the car.
_
> On Jan 31, 6:14 am, Danny Colyer <danny_col...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31/01/2009 11:46, Paul - xxx mobile wrote:
>>
>>> There seemed to be plenty room for an overtake where it was done ...
>> And yet the car was close enough for the cyclist to slap the roof.
>>
>>> the overtake was finished before the pinch point was reached, so
>>> reaching out and slapping the windscreen/roof was completely
>>> unnecessary.
>> QED. I certainly don't think it's unnecessary to alert a driver to the
>> fact that he has just endangered your life.
>>
>>> It's unfortunate that the cyclist decided to move out way before the
>>> pinch point, but didn't move out far enough to stop overtakes.
>> I don't believe he moved out too early, but I /do/ believe he didn't
>> move out far enough.
>>
>> --
>> Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
>> Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
>> "The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
>
>
> magna's had some tremendously positive responses to his video clips,
> he prompted a Scotch bus company to carry "Cyclists beware" stickers
> on their buses.
>
>
> It's a tremendous weapon against numpty drivers like the cabbie who
> doesn't know road safety in the clip, a head cam costs less than a ton
> now and is an immediate, impartial witness to the kind of numpty
> behaviour every cyclist encounters.
>
behaviour such as that displayed by the cyclist, eh?
_
He showed *admirable* restraint. He didn't get out and twat the
foulmouthed yob on a bike spitting venom at him.
> of which the driver
> videoed did not. I believe this should be re-submitted to the council
> and chief constable (or Scottish equivalent).
>
I think thats an admirable idea. It might persuade plod to consider
charging the cyclist with a public order offence.
Nick L Plate
>
> He showed *admirable* restraint. He didn't get out and twat the
> foulmouthed yob on a bike spitting venom at him.
>
> > of which the driver
> > videoed did not. I believe this should be re-submitted to the council
> > and chief constable (or Scottish equivalent).
>
> I think thats an admirable idea. It might persuade plod to consider
> charging the cyclist with a public order offence.
The taxi driver should have restrained from passing the cyclist as
there was insufficient room to carry out the manouveure in safety due
to oncoming traffic which also prevented the driver taking an adequate
view of the road ahead. The opinions of the passenger at the time
would be important.
_
So, a *possible* traffic offence, then. And a *definite* offence (if not
two) by the cyclist. Remind me, who's likeliest to get a visit from plod
if the tape is resubmitted (and thats apart from me forwarding his OTHER
videos to the taxi company)?
Sir Jeremy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know its your condition, but you really should try and control your
paranoid behaviour.
_
> "AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009
> 07:38:26 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> "spindrift" <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a30696f-4bca-46fb...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>>> This, not me by the way:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>>>
>>> prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
>>>
>>> This was their response:
>>>
>>> complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
>>>
>>> I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
>>> reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
>>>
>>> We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
>>> letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
>>> process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
>>> space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
>>>
>>> He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
>>> his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
>>> approached him, shouting and swearing.
>>>
>>> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
>>> his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
>>> driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
>>> upset caused.
>>>
>>>
>>> This concludes our investigation.
>>
>> [1] At the point which Mr Angry Cyclist was overtaken, the road was wide
>> enough to be overtaken.
>
> Only by breaking the law.
Wrong yet again, Lee. The HC *isn't* the law. D'oh...
>
>> If he *really* did not want to be overtaken at that
>> point then perhaps he should have been further away from the kerb.
>
> Any further, and the moronic driver would have probably been
> UNDERtaking him.
You're right, for once. The retarded cyclist is waaaaaaay too far out
from the kerb.
>> That will
>> block them overtaking. If however he wanted to be courteous he might have
>> moved a little closer to the kerb (there were no parked cars). And then
>> moved out before reaching the pinch-point.
>>
> By which time the car would have been alongside.
>
>> [2] Slapping a car as it overtakes is unwise.
>>
> Yes, kicking it would be far better, in the absence of a D lock.
LOL you go right ahead old son. I'll give you about five go's at that
before you come across someone who fights your aggression with some
aggression of his own, and inserts your D lock into your cranium. Make
sure you're wearing one of these cameras, so we can all take the piss
out of you afterwards :)
> But having to push off the side of the car that's just driven into the
> side of you is neither.
>
>> [3] Shouting abuse at the driver probably does more harm than good.
>>
> I didn't hear any abuse from the cyclist. Only perfectly justified
> outrage.
>
Everyone else did. So, wrong again Lee (wow, you're getting an enviable
record of incorrect answers so far!)
>> While I can understand the frustrations of this cyclist (and cyclists in
>> general) I don't actually think that his method of educating motorists
>> actually does any good.
>
> And what method do you use?
> His message has reached thousands.
Including the police, who should now have the copies from the cab
company. Wonder how long before he gets a 'talk', presuming he hasn't
had already
>
>> All it does is make him appear aggressive, bitter,
>> twisted and perhaps ought not be on the road at all.
>
> Unlike reckless lunatics who can't read the highway code?
Or lunatics on cycles who break the law like this muppet did?
>> Standards of driving are generally pretty poor. Cyclists are generally not
>> respected as they should be. The combination of the two means that cyclists
>> need to ride defensively.
>
> Cycling defensively, the Neville Chamblain method!
> When threatened by a lunatic, give him what he wants.
Oh, give it time. He'll be under someones wheels soon enough, with his
attitude.
>
>> Blocking overtaking traffic when it is not
>> necessary, slapping cars and hurling abuse is asking for trouble.
>
> And driving into the side of a cyclist is what, precisely?
>> Shoot me down! but I am sure I am not the only cyclist who thinks this.
>>
> Yes, and by crawling along gutters in the door zone, you only serve to
> encourage the lunatics who try to insist we belong there.
You dont belong there, Lee. You belong in a cell. Preferably with padded
walls...
JNugent
> spindrift <newt...@hotmail.com> considered Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:04:07
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>> This, not me by the way:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>>
>> prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
>>
>> This was their response:
>>
>> complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
>>
>> I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
>> reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
>>
>> We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
>> letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
>> process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
>> space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
>>
>> He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
>> his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
>> approached him, shouting and swearing.
>>
>> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
>> his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
>> driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
>> upset caused.
>>
>>
>> This concludes our investigation.
>
None.
They don't prosecute for Road Traffic Act offences in any event - that's the
job of the police.
Surely you don't expect them to remove his local authority licence(s) just on
the say-so of a complainant?
spindrift
wrote:
> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:59:04
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
> issue of a driving licence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fantasising about killing people is a recurrent theme among safespeed
supporters.
_
> spindrift <newt...@hotmail.com> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:59:04
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
> issue of a driving licence.
Or to use a bike on the highway. In fact, ANY compulsory test for
cycling on the highway would be an improvement, eh?
francis
wrote:
> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:59:04
> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> issue of a driving licence.
And indeed for a cycling licence (you would want to be fair after all)
Francis
spindrift
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's true , as long as motorists kill ten people every day and cyclist
kill 0.5 people a year we'll never have parity.
_
shouldn't be called to account at all, right?
Nick L Plate
>
> So, a *possible* traffic offence, then. And a *definite* offence (if not
> two) by the cyclist. Remind me, who's likeliest to get a visit from plod
> if the tape is resubmitted (and thats apart from me forwarding his OTHER
I believe that the cyclist made a hand signal and the taxi driver
caused his vehicle to colide with the cyclist, striking his hand. The
swearing which followed by the cyclist was due to the provocation of
the collision. If the swearing was presented to court as a public
order offence, the cyclist would plead guilty and ask for a
dismissal. Considering the circumstances preceding the swearing, this
should be granted. But I'm no sheriff. Within the UK we have a right
to use the highways, we are permitted to use a motor vehicle. This
permission can be recinded. theoretically, cyclist has little to
lose, taxi driver, much.
rufus
<tj-...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 7:41 pm, _ <w...@prettyboy.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, a *possible* traffic offence, then. And a *definite* offence (if not
>> two) by the cyclist. Remind me, who's likeliest to get a visit from plod
>> if the tape is resubmitted (and thats apart from me forwarding his OTHER
>> videos to the taxi company)?-
>
>I believe that the cyclist made a hand signal
Why do you " believe" that - there is no indication of it on the
video?
james...@gmail.com
wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > I think this is the area to focus on. "Although the driver feels it
> > was safe to pass" is exceptionally weak wording.
>
> OK, the driver felt it was safe. You don't feel it was safe .. I feel
> it was possibly safe ... so what?
Can you just clarify once more to avoid misunderstandings, that you
consider it acceptable for a car to overtake (at the speed shown in
the video) so close that the cyclist can actually slap on the window?
James
_
acceptable for the car to overtake that close than for you to cycle
through red traffic lights, as you freely admit (even boast of) doing.
When you obey the law yourself, chum, you earn the right to criticise
others. Til then, STFU you hypocritical retard.
Nick L Plate
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:55:39 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
> >I believe that the cyclist made a hand signal
>
> Why do you " believe" that - there is no indication of it on the
> video?
It is absolutely clear from the video that the cyclist maintained his
position. The driver states that the cyclist moved to his right,
which we have established he did not, if he had it would be evident in
the video. The driver witnessed the raising of cyclists arm and yet
struck said arm, else how could he establish that the cyclist struck
the side or roof of the car. Careful examination of the video backs
this up.
AndyC
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb69e88-d9e0-4a7a...@o40g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 5:49 pm, "AndyC" <web-em...@andycrawford.net> wrote:
>
> There seems to me to be a good argument of riding in the centre of the
> lane
> to ensure that the traffic can't overtake at all, and once the traffic has
> slowed to a safe (and often legal) speed pull over to the left to let them
> pass.
Frustration, caused by self-righteous control freaks like you, causes
plenty of accidents in itself. Fuckwit. Thankfully most people
aren't as bloody-minded as you, as no cyclist has *ever* done that
with me. Yet strangely I haven't killed or injured any of them.
----------------------------------------------------
Like I say, there seems to be a good argument for it...
It's about self-preservation rather than self-righteous control freakiness.
When you are in a situation where the road is *really* too narrow to be
overtaken due to its width and a stream on oncoming traffic and where HGVs
busses and larger vehicles wait until it is safe to pass but numb-skulls
driving white vans, Beemers and Owdys (or cab drivers) squeeze by (I mean
squeeze by) at high speed. Any lack of wittedness is shown by inviting them
to do so by not blocking them. YMMV :-)
But then according to Judith, driving in the gutter means that overtaking
traffic will give more width. My experience is that they just slice by
closer. Judith probably cycles on another planet...
Paul - xxx mobile
Did I say it was acceptable?
I said I think it was possibly safe ..
IMHO this small video doesn't show enough information to come down one
way or the other as to how safe, or unsafe it was. Personally I don't
mind cars passing closely, he wasn't speeding past with a great speed
differential, if he had been and the cyclist hit him, as he did, then
the cyclist would have hurt himself far more than was apparent.
As I've already said, 50-50 .. cyclist thought it unsafe, drier thought
it safe, who can tell either way.
No-one was injured so in fact it was safe at that point in time.
None of which means it's always safe for cars to pass cyclists that
close.
--
Paul - xxx ... somewhere else.
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
AndyC
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:qoa9o498u58ro3j38...@4ax.com...
> "AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009
>
>> If he *really* did not want to be overtaken at
>> that
>>point then perhaps he should have been further away from the kerb.
>
> Any further, and the moronic driver would have probably been
> UNDERtaking him.
That being the case it suggests that the road was possibly wide enough to be
overtaking anyway (?).
>> That
>> will
>>block them overtaking. If however he wanted to be courteous he might have
>>moved a little closer to the kerb (there were no parked cars). And then
>>moved out before reaching the pinch-point.
>>
> By which time the car would have been alongside.
Looking at the distance to go unlikely, but of course that needs to be taken
into account.
>>[2] Slapping a car as it overtakes is unwise.
>>
> Yes, kicking it would be far better, in the absence of a D lock.
> But having to push off the side of the car that's just driven into the
> side of you is neither.
Kicking it, hitting it with a D-lock or whatever would be criminal damage,
is likely to further anger the driver, and may well be dangerous too.
>>[3] Shouting abuse at the driver probably does more harm than good.
>>
> I didn't hear any abuse from the cyclist. Only perfectly justified
> outrage.
He seems to me to come over as angry and aggressive. Justified perhaps but
not necessarily so in the eyes of a cager.
>>While I can understand the frustrations of this cyclist (and cyclists in
>>general) I don't actually think that his method of educating motorists
>>actually does any good.
>
> And what method do you use?
I don't. I don't see my role in life is to educate the millions of motorists
in this country whose driving standards are abysmal and their behaviour and
attitude dangerous to other road users. I will however point things out
where necessary, in a calm and relaxed manner.
> His message has reached thousands.
Which is good. But he also gives the impression that cyclists are
aggressive, bitter and twisted. :-(
>> All it does is make him appear aggressive, bitter,
>>twisted and perhaps ought not be on the road at all.
>
> Unlike reckless lunatics who can't read the highway code?
C'mon. It's not that they can't read it. They just do not BOTHER to read it
or they just follow the bits they know, choose to know, or like!
>>Standards of driving are generally pretty poor. Cyclists are generally not
>>respected as they should be. The combination of the two means that
>>cyclists
>>need to ride defensively.
>
> Cycling defensively, the Neville Chamblain method!
> When threatened by a lunatic, give him what he wants.
Blocking when you need to, keeping outta their way when you need to.
>> Blocking overtaking traffic when it is not
>>necessary, slapping cars and hurling abuse is asking for trouble.
>
> And driving into the side of a cyclist is what, precisely?
Stupid, dangerous, your point?
>>Shoot me down! but I am sure I am not the only cyclist who thinks this.
>>
> Yes, and by crawling along gutters in the door zone, you only serve to
> encourage the lunatics who try to insist we belong there.
I agree, ride wide. Force them to think. Help them out by allowing them to
pass when it is safe. I do a fair number of cycling miles. I take primary, I
block, I allow traffic to pass when it is safe, but I don't seem to have the
problems that Mr Mag has on a regular basis.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com>:
>> Surely you don't expect them to remove his local authority licence(s) just on
>> the say-so of a complainant?
> No, just on the video proof already submitted to them.
And which part of the UK's legislation do you say (or think) entitles a local
authority to deprive someone of his livelihood on such a slender basis?
Think carefullybefore you answer, but I'll give you a clue: private hire
vehicles, their drivers and operators are usually licenced under the
provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976.
And remeber the concept of "natural justice" (which means that there has to
be a fair hearing, with a right of appeal).
Do you really think that the law allows a local authority to behave as
peremptorily as you might?
> They are being grossly negligent in their duty of care to the public
> by allowing such a reckless driver to retain his private hire licence.
Do you really think that if the police and the courts aren't interested, a
local authority should/would/could be?
> And when some poor sod gets wiped out by that lunatic, I hope his
> dependents manage to find the evidence that the authority knew about
> his behaviour and didn't act, so that they can go after them.
> They deserve it.
> They are being paid to do a job which they are not doing,
What is that "job"?
To ban people from driving for alleged breaches of the Road Traffic Acts
without a trial in court?
Please be precise as to what you think the "job" of a local authority officer
(or can be).
> and their
> failure to do their job is endangering the public.
Do you know how to spell "hyperbole"?
> That is actually grounds for dismissal even under the "job-for-life"
> scheme that local government mostly is.
How can one dismiss a self-employed person?
As it happens, if there were an easy way of getting rid of the private hire
trade, I'd be interested in it (I am no supporter of it); but pretending that
local authorities have powers which simply don't exist is not the way to go
about that.
_
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009
> 20:59:27 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Surely you don't expect them to remove his local authority licence(s) just on
>> the say-so of a complainant?
>
>
> by allowing such a reckless driver to retain his private hire licence.
>
> dependents manage to find the evidence that the authority knew about
> his behaviour and didn't act, so that they can go after them.
> They deserve it.
> failure to do their job is endangering the public.
> scheme that local government mostly is.
You should lay off the sauce.
oldMaxim
> This, not me by the way:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
>
> prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
>
> This was their response:
>
> complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
>
> I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
> reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
>
> We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
> letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
> process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
> space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
>
> He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
> his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
> approached him, shouting and swearing.
>
> As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
> his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
> driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
> upset caused.
>
> This concludes our investigation.
Seems to me this is what happens when you have two idiots in close
proximity, I think the cabbie should have waited for a gap in the
oncoming traffic, though it would have been a safer manoever had the
cyclist been closer to the kerb than he was (like it or not the pinch
point was still a decent way off). The cabbie didn't hit the cyclist,
but the cyclist stupidly bashed the car (adding even more "risk" to
the situation on the grounds of distracting the drivers attention).
The cyclists manner towards the driver was undoubtably
confrontational, and would, I'm sure, in a court be interpreted as him
adopting a threatening and aggresive attitude. The fact that the
cyclist wears a headcam to feed his sad youtube "habit" would surely
count against him, he obviously has issues with anger management which
he needs to address before I'd want him representing my pov as a
cyclist!
If you go out looking for trouble, you'll usually find it, the trick
is to avoid becoming a part of it - c'est la vie!
colinhill
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> considered Sat, 31 Jan 2009
>20:59:27 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Surely you don't expect them to remove his local authority licence(s) just on
>>the say-so of a complainant?
>
>No, just on the video proof already submitted to them.
>
>They are being grossly negligent in their duty of care to the public
>by allowing such a reckless driver to retain his private hire licence.
>
>And when some poor sod gets wiped out by that lunatic, I hope his
>dependents manage to find the evidence that the authority knew about
>his behaviour and didn't act, so that they can go after them.
>They deserve it.
>They are being paid to do a job which they are not doing, and their
>failure to do their job is endangering the public.
>That is actually grounds for dismissal even under the "job-for-life"
>scheme that local government mostly is.
You're public spirited and I have heard an expert on the law - why
don't you take out a private prosecution against the taxi driver. As
you know, you could also do the taxi company he worked for.
Go for it.
rufus
So you are saying that the cyclist actually put his arm out to
indicate he was moving over to the right - and then the taxi driver
hit his arm? And you also say that " The driver witnessed the
raising of cyclists arm" - how do you know this?
You have just established yourself as a being a worthy member of the
urc fuckwits.
You blatantly make things up - of course you could have made a genuine
mistake in what you think happened- just say so.
spindrift
that lies about the cyclist's position would prove to be EXTREMLY
embarrassing if this cabbie acts like a muppet again and hurts
someone.
They can't deny they had received previous complaints about his
aggressive, illegal behaviour because they responded, dishonestly, to
magna's complaint.
So, if God forbid this driver hurts or kills someone by driving like
an idiot again, the relatives of the injured party would
understandably ask why the authorities took such a dismissive approach
to an actual recording of the driver's aggression and lack of road
sense.
I wouldn't like to be in their shoes if that happens...
_
> What's interesting is that the letter from the licencing authority
> that lies about the cyclist's position would prove to be EXTREMLY
> embarrassing if this cabbie acts like a muppet again and hurts
> someone.
>
> They can't deny they had received previous complaints about his
> aggressive,
No, the aggressive party was the snarling abusive cyclist.
> illegal
No, the lawbreaking party was the cyclist, who committed a public order
offence AND assault AND attempted criminal damage.
> behaviour because they responded, dishonestly, to
> magna's complaint.
>
> So, if God forbid this driver hurts or kills someone by driving like
> an idiot again, the relatives of the injured party would
> understandably ask why the authorities took such a dismissive approach
> to an actual recording of the driver's aggression and lack of road
> sense.
>
> I wouldn't like to be in their shoes if that happens...
Wont be a problem. They can see that the cyclist is obviously a
provocational nutter and therefore his opinions need to be viewed with
extreme cynicism.
Nick L Plate
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:39:59 -0800 (PST), Nick L Plate
>
>
>
> >It is absolutely clear from the video that the cyclist maintained his
> >position. The driver states that the cyclist moved to his right,
> >which we have established he did not, if he had it would be evident in
> >the video. The driver witnessed the raising of cyclists arm and yet
> >struck said arm, else how could he establish that the cyclist struck
> >the side or roof of the car. Careful examination of the video backs
> >this up.
>
> So you are saying that the cyclist actually put his arm out to
> indicate he was moving over to the right - and then the taxi driver
> hit his arm? And you also say that " The driver witnessed the
> raising of cyclists arm" - how do you know this?
>
> You have just established yourself as a being a worthy member of the
> urc fuckwits.
>
> You blatantly make things up - of course you could have made a genuine
> mistake in what you think happened- just say so.
No mistake
A re-examination of the video shows the brown gloved hand in front of
the cars windscreen a moment after the thud made upon collision. It
is highly probable the hand contacted either the wing mirror or lower
windscreen. Then was heard the sound of a car horn. Then there is a
further thud as the cyclist throws his hand out and strikes the side
of the car. A reasonable cyclist in icy conditions will not remove a
hand from the handlebars except to make a signal. To see this removal
of hand for any other purpose is preposterous It is obvious that the
cyclist is concerened of his personal safety and would therefore it
would be unreasonable to assume the removal of hand from the
handlebars was for any malicious intent. A cyclist like a pedestrian
has no protection, a car driver has a ton of steel wrapped around
him. It would not be in a cyclist intrest to purposely collide with a
motor vehicle.
From the given report from the licensing authority, the taxi driver
lied in his evidence. "The driver stated that while he was in the
process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
space that he would normally leave for cyclists." This is not shown
in the video. I say again, the cyclist maintained his position. If it
had moved out, the driver would still have been at fault, he should
have abandoned the overtake. How did the driver know that the cyclist
had not simply fell against the car? The fact that the initial
contact was so low, mirrors are at the same height as handlebars,
confirms that ther was only centimetres between vehicles. Whichever
way you look at it, this was not simply a mistake and I can understand
the cyclists outrage. A taxi driver is a professional driver and we
should expect the highest standards of driving. He should not barge
his way through traffic.
If the driver did not see the raising of the arm, which I can see is
possible, it raise the question of whether his eyesight is up to the
job. It is clear he attempted an overtake without sufficient room,
perhaps he suffers from glaucoma. He may never have seen the cyclist
until after the collision. He seems to think he saw something which
didi not happen, "you moved to the right". A driver with glaucoma in
both eyes has to inform 'driver licencing' of his condition and a test
is arranged to ensure that no blind spots are evident when using both
eyes together. It is possible to drive completely blind in one eye as
long as the other is perfect. As a professional driver, the standards
are higher, tunnel vision in either eye dissallows the holding of a
HGV licence. I expect PSV is the same and Hacne carriage are almost.
That leaves mini cabs. I think mini cab drivers should undergo a
compuslary eye test before being granted a licence and upon re-issue
annually. I believe this for the protection of passengers. I do not
know whether they are even obliged to inform of an eyesight defect. I
can understand a cab driver would want to disguise this. This is
wrong. It is at least unethical and would invalidate his insurance.
The cab company would probably then have to settle any claims. It is
in the intrest of the cab company not to engage drivers with non
disclosed medical defects.
I am 100% satisfied the driver lied about the rider's change of
position. I believe the cyclist acted reasonably given the road
layout and surface conditions. The driver gave no indication of his
approach or his intention to overtake( no horn). The driver caused
his vehicle to collide with the cyclist.
I withdraw my conclusion that the driver winessed the raising of the
cyclists arm. It is unreasonable of me to expect a blind man to see a
cyclist making a clear arm signal. The driver also does not indicate
which part of the body he struck, whether it be hand, elbow, hip,
knee, chest or head, he only indicates he hit the cyclist. He still
left the scene of an 'accident' without providing insurance details.
This is a legal requirement when personal injury is involved. The
driver did not enquire upon the nature of the cyclists injuries. This
appears criminal, as the driver has fled the scene of an accident
knowing he has made bodily contact with a cyclist without ensuring the
welfare of the person to which he has collided. Nuerologists do not
find it extraordinary that aggressiveness follows a head injury. I
wish this was more widely known.
Below you will find the original posting.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxquotexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This, not me by the way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=notuuDg1-tQ
prompted a complaint to the taxi licensing authorities.
This was their response:
complaint against driver of Private hire car plate no.2266
I refer to the above and can now make you aware of the conclusions
reached as a result of our investigation into the allegations raised.
We traced and interviewed the driver of the vehicle detailed in your
letter of complaint. The driver stated that while he was in the
process of overtaking, you moved to the right, therefore reducing the
space that he would normally leave for cyclists.
He also stated that as he passed you, you struck the side or roof of
his vehicle, at which point he stopped. The driver stated you then
approached him, shouting and swearing.
As he had a female passenger on board he decided to drive away, as
his passenger and he did not need to tolerate this. Although the
driver feels it was safe to pass when he did, he apologises for any
upset caused.
This concludes our investigation.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxendquotexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JNugent
[ ... ]
> A reasonable cyclist in icy conditions will not remove a
> hand from the handlebars except to make a signal. To see this removal
> of hand for any other purpose is preposterous
As a matter iof general interest (and since you clearly know a lot more about
the incident than can be gleaned from watching the video), if the cyclist
wasn't moving - or about to move - to his right, what was he signalling for?
Additionally, do you know which button you have to click to get the English
subtitles?
Nick L Plate
> As a matter iof general interest (and since you clearly know a lot more about
> the incident than can be gleaned from watching the video), if the cyclist
> wasn't moving - or about to move - to his right, what was he signalling for?
>
> Additionally, do you know which button you have to click to get the English
> subtitles?
Not only did I watch the video, I listened. I also read the reply
from the authority. A lot can be learnt from what a driver does not
report. This usually shows his ignorance. I do not think a
professional driver should be ignorant to such an extent to make
serious errors of judgement as demonstrated by the video. Correct
observation, decision and application are essential for safe driving.
Either the driver failed in his observation, which I suspect is most
likely, in his decision( I'll be buggered if this cyclist holds me up,
I'm going through"), or in his application(mechanical failure to
control). I can not see how the driver could have expected to pass
safely given the space available. Even at a slow speed, a minimum of
two feet is required for a motor vehicle to pass a cyclist. A driver
who fails to give warning of his overtake should be two yards. I am
not a Scottish cyclist.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
So you don't actually *know* why the cyclist took his right hand off the
handlebars if he wasn't indicating (and impliedly moving) right?
So as a matter of interest, how do you think you "know" all this other stuff
you claim?
Nick L Plate
> point was still a decent way off). The cabbie didn't hit the cyclist,
> but the cyclist stupidly bashed the car (adding even more "risk" to
> the situation on the grounds of distracting the drivers attention).
A moment before the horn toot is the sound of the initial impact. The
cyclists hand is at a low angle indicating its proximinty to the
handlebar, dead close. The car struck the hand of the rider, causing
it to deflect upwards, with either the windscreen or mirror. The
exact point of contact is not easy to see because the wing of the
vehicle is obscured. The sudden deflection of the brown gloved hand
along with the thud convinces me this was the initial impact. As for
bashing the car, the initial impact unbalances a cyclist and in self
preservation, to slap the side of the car would help in regaining
balance, so as not to end up under the cars rear wheels or under a
following vehicle.
spindrift
This is the most damning evidence in my favour, what does the driver
say when he stops to talk to magna. Does he say I swug out at him,
does he say that I caused the incident? No. He says, 'You were in the
middle of the road!' Now is that what he would say if I had swerved
out at him. He would more likely say, 'you were all over the place',
you swung out' etc. So at the drivers OWN admission I was far out in
the lane at the time of the overtake. (He says it twice!). So lets
just take the drivers word for it......
_
> On Feb 1, 4:29 am, Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 1 Feb, 11:52, oldMaxim <mac_har...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> point was still a decent way off). The cabbie didn't hit the cyclist,
>>> but the cyclist stupidly bashed the car (adding even more "risk" to
>>> the situation on the grounds of distracting the drivers attention).
>> A moment before the horn toot is the sound of the initial impact. The
>> cyclists hand is at a low angle indicating its proximinty to the
>> handlebar, dead close. The car struck the hand of the rider, causing
>> it to deflect upwards, with either the windscreen or mirror. The
>> exact point of contact is not easy to see because the wing of the
>> vehicle is obscured. The sudden deflection of the brown gloved hand
>> along with the thud convinces me this was the initial impact. As for
>> bashing the car, the initial impact unbalances a cyclist and in self
>> preservation, to slap the side of the car would help in regaining
>> balance, so as not to end up under the cars rear wheels or under a
>> following vehicle.
>
> This is the most damning evidence in my favour, what does the driver
> say when he stops to talk to magna.
Magna. Okay, then.
> Does he say I
Pardon? *I*?
> swug out at him,
> does he say that I
A second 'I'. Hmmmm, not just a typo, then!
> caused the incident? No. He says, 'You were in the
> middle of the road!' Now is that what he would say if I
Third time lucky. So you're the cyclist in the clip, then. Wonder why
the subterfuge of referring to the cyclist as "Magna" rather than "me"
JNugent
> On Feb 1, 4:29 am, Nick L Plate <tj-j...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 1 Feb, 11:52, oldMaxim <mac_har...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> point was still a decent way off). The cabbie didn't hit the cyclist,
>>> but the cyclist stupidly bashed the car (adding even more "risk" to
>>> the situation on the grounds of distracting the drivers attention).
>> A moment before the horn toot is the sound of the initial impact. The
>> cyclists hand is at a low angle indicating its proximinty to the
>> handlebar, dead close. The car struck the hand of the rider, causing
>> it to deflect upwards, with either the windscreen or mirror. The
>> exact point of contact is not easy to see because the wing of the
>> vehicle is obscured. The sudden deflection of the brown gloved hand
>> along with the thud convinces me this was the initial impact. As for
>> bashing the car, the initial impact unbalances a cyclist and in self
>> preservation, to slap the side of the car would help in regaining
>> balance, so as not to end up under the cars rear wheels or under a
>> following vehicle.
>
> This is the most damning evidence in my favour, what does the driver
> say when he stops to talk to magna. Does he say I swug out at him,
> does he say that I caused the incident? No. He says, 'You were in the
> middle of the road!'
At first, you said that the cyclist who rode so aggressively and made that
video was not you.
Now you say it was.
Which is it?
yeti
They are both knobs - but not necessarily the same knob.
oldMaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
.....so it was you in the clip then, thought it probably was. Any
other pseudonyms you want to tell us about?
Doesn't matter how you want to spin this, you're always going to come
across as another sad selfish car hating Mr Angry - take your story to
the police and let them get to the bottom of this if it upsets you so
much, or are you worried about which way things might go? I'd laugh my
ass off if you ended up in the dock!