Same here, which is why it's notable that the majority of incidents involve a Lycraman. Most cyclists are in normal clothes plus a high-visibility jacket.
Stupid Cyclist
- Thread starter support_bae
- Start date
Same here, which is why it's notable that the majority of incidents involve a Lycraman. Most cyclists are in normal clothes plus a high-visibility jacket.
So just to clarify -
If its a busy road then cyclists shouldn't be riding 2 abreast BUT, if they are out on a jolly with their mates in a club then its ok on a bust road? Oh, and seeing as this only normally happens on a weekend, it's again OK to hold traffic up by riding 2 abreast as its crazy that people are in a rush as they are not working the weekend? (I know many people that work the weekend)
Although it's not stated within the HC, the cops that took me through the cycling proficiency when I was in Primary School always advised that, when cycling 2 abreast and a vehicle approaches, move into a single line formation as soon as possible i.e. 1 cyclist drops back behind the other.... May not be in the HC but its common sense.
I never said it was alright to hold up anyone.
All I was trying to point out is that on a very fast road, then yes if the cyclists can't match the speed of the cars then it's best to cycle single file as the highway code advises.
However the kind of roads that Sunday club ride is likely to be on there is no reason why they can't cycle two abreast. If cars need to overtake them, as I've reiterated many times now, it's NO DIFFERENT to passing a car, a tractor, a caravan etc...
If the motorist can't safely pass, they shouldn't be doing so. While many cyclists may be courteous and allow drivers through, they don't have to force themselves into the gutter if the car driver can't easily get past. The Cyclist should allow them past when safe to do so, but they are fully allowed to be in the primary position and that's what is advised by the department for transport.
Name them. I want to see a list of at least 20 people and where they work in order to constitute "many".
hmm, i think the cyclist should have slowed down, willingly put himself in danger by not doing so as the van might of turned left a lot tighter. imo the driver was in the wrong for being that impatient but as a cyclist myself, you see that all the time it's just most are good and there's an occasional mentalist. i like living so i yeild to things bigger than me. i think they both need to chill out with the driver doing some anger management or something.
Considering that the van driver broke every single one of these highway code rules:
It's hard to see how you can defend him...
I concede that the cyclist could have avoided the second incident by slowing down, but that does not in anyway, shape or form make it his fault. He also could have avoided it by going a different route, or staying in bed. Doesn't mean he should have done.
I ride off road as a rule, but recently have started doing some road miles to add some fitness, and a lot of drivers seem to have a preformed opinion that anyone on a bike is a major inconvenience that they must pass as quickly as possible, one bloke overtook me practically on the kerb the other night, only to reach the roundabout I'd pulled out for and have to stop. What was the point? He reached the roundabout seconds earlier than he would have, but if he'd have touched me, I'd be under his wheels. I don't think enough people think through the consequences of that.
That said, the vast majority of drivers are good, they are patient, and they wait until its safe. Most cyclists are also safe, cautious and considerate. Both sides could do with keeping that in mind.
It's hard to see how you can defend him...
I concede that the cyclist could have avoided the second incident by slowing down, but that does not in anyway, shape or form make it his fault. He also could have avoided it by going a different route, or staying in bed. Doesn't mean he should have done.
I ride off road as a rule, but recently have started doing some road miles to add some fitness, and a lot of drivers seem to have a preformed opinion that anyone on a bike is a major inconvenience that they must pass as quickly as possible, one bloke overtook me practically on the kerb the other night, only to reach the roundabout I'd pulled out for and have to stop. What was the point? He reached the roundabout seconds earlier than he would have, but if he'd have touched me, I'd be under his wheels. I don't think enough people think through the consequences of that.
That said, the vast majority of drivers are good, they are patient, and they wait until its safe. Most cyclists are also safe, cautious and considerate. Both sides could do with keeping that in mind.
Did OP ever come back into this thread?
I often cycle around York and it's not too bad. You get the occasional bendy bus problem but other than that I find things fine. Not been given the horn or chopped up yet. I do always stop at lights though, it's a bit annoying when I'm on the other end, walking over the crossing or being the car that has to stop because a bike carried on through.
My opinion is that the van man was wrong, but bike man should have used his noggin. As for van man's reaction, way over the top.
I often cycle around York and it's not too bad. You get the occasional bendy bus problem but other than that I find things fine. Not been given the horn or chopped up yet. I do always stop at lights though, it's a bit annoying when I'm on the other end, walking over the crossing or being the car that has to stop because a bike carried on through.
My opinion is that the van man was wrong, but bike man should have used his noggin. As for van man's reaction, way over the top.
Some people need to get out more if they are asking for proof that there are people who work weekends.
I've never understood that one either.
It just seems that there is some kind of mentality of "It's a cyclist, I must overtake them!".
It happens to me all the time, I'm approaching a set of red traffic lights, only to find somebody come flying past me to then brake heavily to stop for the lights. Considering I live in London and it's nothing but sets of traffic lights after one another, this is totally pointless and a waste of fuel. When I'm driving between sets of lights in my car I use engine braking and let myself cruise between them. London is not for drivers... that coming from somebody who owns a car, I hate using it in London.
I love the way the BBC cut the video.
They take 20 seconds of him riding very nice and politely, then cut to the bit at the end of it all when the van driver is so ****ed off with the cyclist he deliberately cuts him up. He's obviously done something before hand to wind him up. Hence why when the bike trys to undertake the van again, the van driver slams his anchors on and gets out in a road rage.
To my mind we're only seeing half the story in that video.
We all know how cyclists really ride in the city. Its like this
half the time any violence the bikers get their way is just as deserved as any violence the car drivers may receive from angry cyclists.
It doesn't matter what you want, I don't think he's going to give out the personal details of 20 people he knows. Why is it so hard to believe people work at the weekends? You do go to the shops on Saturdays sometimes? Do you think the people who serve you are androids?
Exactly, i would be in at least one crash and month I didn't make allowances for other drivers lack of awareness and/or general disregard to lanes on roundabouts etc.
Excellent example is a roundabout near me, a smallish 2 lane job with 4 roads at 90 degree intervals, people always straddle both lanes when going straight over... you expect it, and hang back and let them carry on, if I had the same attitude as the guy in the video, i would be buying a new front wing twice a month.
Why did the cyclist not just back down? He was clearly being overtaken, but he then suddenly decides to undertake the van again on a bend and stay in his blindspot?? 
If you are at a junction that narrows from 2 lanes down to one, one person has to concede.
If you are at a junction that narrows from 2 lanes down to one, one person has to concede.
Why did the cyclist not just back down? He was clearly being overtaken, but he then suddenly decides to undertake the van again on a bend and stay in his blindspot??
If you are at a junction that narrows from 2 lanes down to one, one person has to concede.
because you're seeing the tag end of a road rage battle.
They've cut the bit out where something happened that caused them to both get angry and start fighting over road space.
Probably true enough.
It does just look like they are both having a bit of a road fight.
Why did the cyclist not just back down? He was clearly being overtaken, but he then suddenly decides to undertake the van again on a bend and stay in his blindspot??
If you are at a junction that narrows from 2 lanes down to one, one person has to concede.
Because he is clearly a narcissistic berk. But I guess it raises awareness which is good. The van driver on the other hand acted very badly, and deserved his fine/points.
You not think that might have come up in the court case that found in the cyclists favour then?
If you drive in rush hour you see it all the time.
Somebody does something minor to the other that he doesnt like, an inconsiderate lane change etc..
The person then takes offence to this, and takes revenge by trying to do something to them back. Other person doesnt like this either and responds back.
Each time it escalates into something more and more dangerous until the only thing left is either to crash into them, or just stop in front of them and get out of the car.
We've only seen half that process in the video.
the cyclist won because ultimately it was the van driver who got out and went at it with his fists. This instantly portrays him as the being the worst of the two. And given that all the cyclist probably did was overtake him is completely un-necessary and an over-reaction.
Doesn't mean the cyclist didnt have it coming though. He could have avoided it all by just biting his tongue and let the van driver go on his way. You have to do this all the time in a typical rush hour commute. People get up too late etc.. people being rude, people thinking they own the road and using their car like a weapon etc.. Best way to deal with it is just to let them get on with and not react. That avoids road rage incidents like this.
Somebody does something minor to the other that he doesnt like, an inconsiderate lane change etc..
The person then takes offence to this, and takes revenge by trying to do something to them back. Other person doesnt like this either and responds back.
Each time it escalates into something more and more dangerous until the only thing left is either to crash into them, or just stop in front of them and get out of the car.
We've only seen half that process in the video.
the cyclist won because ultimately it was the van driver who got out and went at it with his fists. This instantly portrays him as the being the worst of the two. And given that all the cyclist probably did was overtake him is completely un-necessary and an over-reaction.
Doesn't mean the cyclist didnt have it coming though. He could have avoided it all by just biting his tongue and let the van driver go on his way. You have to do this all the time in a typical rush hour commute. People get up too late etc.. people being rude, people thinking they own the road and using their car like a weapon etc.. Best way to deal with it is just to let them get on with and not react. That avoids road rage incidents like this.
Last edited:
Why did the cyclist not just back down? He was clearly being overtaken, but he then suddenly decides to undertake the van again on a bend and stay in his blindspot??
If you are at a junction that narrows from 2 lanes down to one, one person has to concede.
It's been spelled out I don't know how many times now!
The Cyclist is traveling at a decent speed.
The Van driver attempts to overtake him breaking every rule in the book.
The Cyclist is being cut up and can't just slam on the anchors because he's likely to be hit from behind. Same as with if he was a car, but he will come off worse.
The Van driver's overtaking was deplorable, I can't believe people are still claiming what he did was alright.
Last edited: