This attitude is increasingly the norm on the road.
"I'm in the right/have right of way"
Yes mate, you also just had an entirely avoidable collision because you're a ****
Is this the unraveling of CyclingMikey?
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
This attitude is increasingly the norm on the road.
"I'm in the right/have right of way"
Yes mate, you also just had an entirely avoidable collision because you're a ****
It seems something an increasing number of people don't understand, or don't want to, especially after the hierarchy of road users changes. The highway code doesn't actively give right of way let alone give someone license to take right of way and do whatever they want. The highway code leans to priority is given not taken and that all road users should not unnecessarily hold up or obstruct other users or cause them to change speed or direction - with some exceptions for when for example another road user has already committed before line of sight and for some types of crossings.
There is a big discussion elsewhere where some pedestrians walk out and amble along and across the road on a long diagonal rather than cross directly let alone use the pedestrian crossing a few feet behind them, when they could see a car approaching, the driver unfortunately doesn't handle it very well either. Lots of people's responses is along the lines of "well the pedestrians have a right to be there"...
I will say about Mike what I said about just stop oil. He behaves like an ******** because other people are nice enough to put up with his behaviour.
Yes the driver shouldn’t be driving that way but he has no authority to be behaving like this. And he seems more concerned with getting high on his power trips rather than actual road safety. Quite frankly the police should have dealt with him long before it got to this point. But maybe they are too busy enjoying those easy wins he delivers to them.
Remember peeps there is no point being right if you are dead.
Yes the driver shouldn’t be driving that way but he has no authority to be behaving like this. And he seems more concerned with getting high on his power trips rather than actual road safety. Quite frankly the police should have dealt with him long before it got to this point. But maybe they are too busy enjoying those easy wins he delivers to them.
Remember peeps there is no point being right if you are dead.
I'm sure you've claimed something along these lines before and failed to show where you've got it from. Care to try again?
Yeah this is where I have a problem with him - no issue with him documenting, reporting and even reasonably challenging people (verbally) in what are often clear cut infringements but he should not be directly intervening in situations where he has no idea if someone has an exemption or maybe got in a bad situation through no fault of their own even if that probably isn't the case in the vast majority of times.
This shouldn't even be a question if you've read the highway code and have some idea of the road traffic act. It isn't something that is put in one definitive sentence but the consistent theme of the rules and guidance.
For example the opening text is:
"The Highway Code is essential reading for all road users, including pedestrians, mobility scooter users, cyclists, horse riders, drivers and motorcyclists."
Another bit "The hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly", "None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.".
But a lot of pedestrians don't think it applies to them to read it.
Last edited:
I'm sure we can all agree that you should always avoid collisions and negative interactions with other road users (I.E. causing swerving, hard braking etc.). That will often mean giving way to someone who has done something stupid
He said should, which is probably correct. I don't believe pedestrians have any requirement to read the highway code so... I just know running them over is frowned upon, even if they are *****
Having said that, I don't believe I have ever "read" the highway code. It's mostly pretty obvious, follow the rules you learnt and don't be a ****
This is why things like section 137 (1980) of the RTA exists (EDIT: Not sure which section it is in 1988 without looking it up), the general guidance in the highway code should be taken on broadly specific sections don't just apply in isolation - not everything is spelled out in black and white. If you actually read the highway code some of it fairly obviously applies broadly like not causing other road users to have to unnecessarily change speed or direction is all part of behaving responsibly.
Last edited:
Anyone who deliberately tries to trigger a vehicles collision avoidance system is an idiot.
If they're trying to do it for a car they've got no idea about they're a darwin award contender, as most cars won't have it, and even those that do might have it turned off because of things like false alerts.
And as you say wearing flip flops whilst cycling is pretty stupid in itself, as they offer no protection to your feet, and are liable to come off or cause other issues.
This is before anything else.
IIRC All road users are expected to make progress and not cause an unnecessary obstruction or delay.
Pedestrians when on the road are by definition road users.
If you do something to deliberately block the road, rather than use it as normal it doesn't matter if you're on shanks pony or a lambo.
You can from memory get arrested for blocking the Kings Highway deliberately regardless of if you're doing it on foot, in a car, with your bike, or with a 50 ton Chieftain tank.
Instead of 'IIRC', please show where this is stated. I'm pretty sure you can't.
Also, blocking or obstructing the road has nothing to do with pedestrians crossing, which might simply mean a driver (or cyclist even) has to slow down temporarily. Anyone who argues otherwise should be ashamed to hold a licence.
Yup
IIRC the Highway code is basically "An idiots guide to using the road", rather than the need to know a vast amount of case law and written law that would require a law degree and a specialisation in motoring law to fully understand.
It's why you don't dawdle when crossing, and if you're being sensible and considerate you try and do things like cross with a group of others rather than have one person at a time crossing the road for several minutes.
IIRC all road users are meant to show consideration for other road users, and that's been something for as long as I can remember.
I also remember a bit from some sailing lessons I had decades ago on a school trip, when the instructor was saying about how smaller ships normally have right of way, and someone asked "what if it's a super tanker" and the response was something like "you use your common sense, he won't even notice hitting you".
It is all part of "always show due care and consideration for others." in the pedestrian section. That doesn't mean drivers shouldn't slow down temporarily for someone crossing the road but it does mean pedestrians should avoid causing another road user to have to change direction or speed (obviously there are some exceptions to this at certain types of crossings, etc. hence why those crossing exist as a specific type of crossing).
Obstruction is all relative on a scale but it does infer that road users should attempt to maintain free flow of the highway and not hold up other users more than is necessary and that does apply to pedestrians as much as anyone else.
Last edited:
The Highway Code - Rules for pedestrians (1 to 35) - Guidance - GOV.UK
Rules for pedestrians, including general guidance, crossing the road, crossings, and situations needing extra care.
What part of this do you believe "allows" pedestrians to obstruct the road? It's all fairly simple if not spelled out for every conceivable situation
Considering the topic at hand, He wasn’t crossing the road, he was playing in the road. Specifically playing a game of chicken
Informal pedestrian crossing clubs for the unhindered advancement of motorvehicles?
This is completely unhinged.
That is the other thing - his intention wasn't to cross but to impede the driver - sure the driver likely should not have been there.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2019
- Posts
- 134
- Location
- The cold wet North East of England
The driver had already committed to reckless driving? He set off (for a second time) from a standing start in the middle of the road and accelerated hard even after he saw Mikey step off the pavement. He should have just turned his car around and followed the diversion. He instead made a decision to drive the wrong way on the right-hand-side of the road (creating a risk of having a head-on collision with an oncoming motor vehicle or bicycle).
He should have braked the moment Mikey stepped off the kerb, instead he hit the accelerator. He shouldn't have set off down that lane in the first place.
Look at the way the Police handled this previous (quite similar) road rage incident with Mikey. The car driver there bumped Mikey with his car to try to make Mikey get out of his way so he could continue to drive on the wrong side of the road to jump a queue for vehicles making a right turn. The Police came to the scene and were ready to charge the driver with assault. They didn't tell Mikey off for blocking the driver's path while he made an illegal maneuver or threaten him with prosecution.
I'm sorry, you're obviously very intelligent, but you're letting the "irritating vigilante cyclist" narrative cloud your judgement. In a situation like this the law puts most of the responsibility on to the car driver to drive safely and to avoid causing harm to others on the road. He is driving a heavy fast vehicle which is capable of maiming or killing other people easily. HE DECIDED TO FORCE HIS WAY THROUGH.
The moment the "chicken game" began with Mickey he should have disengaged and driven round the diversion. If he was in the right he should have called the Police rather than getting into a potentially dangerous contest with a pedestrian. This is real life not a Mad Max movie! What if another car had driven round that blind left-hand-bend behind Mikey when he went speeding through? The speed limit on that road was 20 mph, but the way that driver accelerated he must have been doing at least 30 mph. If another car had come round the bend there would have been a head-on collision with a combined speed of 50 mph. That could write-off both cars and result in serious injury or death.
What if Mikey had been hit and killed by the car? The driver would have been looking at a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving". Dangerous driving is defined by the driver's standard of driving, not the actions of others. It's about whether the driver's driving fell 'far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous'. Mikey's actions might be considered in determining the driver's level of fault (culpability), but they are unlikely to reduce the charge itself. The driver's own dangerous driving would remain the focus of the charge. Mikey's contributory negligence would only be a factor in the judge's custodial sentencing decision for the driver.
Look at the way the Police handled this previous (quite similar) road rage incident with Mikey. The car driver there bumped Mikey with his car several times to try to make Mikey get out of his way so he could continue to drive on the wrong side of the road to jump a queue for vehicles making a right turn. The Police came to the scene and were ready to charge the driver with assault. They didn't tell Mikey off for stepping into the road and blocking the driver's path while he made an illegal maneuver or threaten him with prosecution.
Given that Mikey used the F-word a couple of times when the next driver tried to force their way through (after his bike was hit) it's most likely that the Police would fine him for "Breach of the Peace". It wouldn't send a very good message to dangerous drivers if they tried to prosecute Mikey for causing "criminal damage" to the car that almost ran him down.
They brought it up his sexuality not me. Is there anything incorrect about what I said?
There's a big difference between being a hothead and being suicidal. This ludicrous idea that Mikey was trying to cause criminal damage to the car with his >£4,000 bike (and contents) has been rebutted numerous times on this thread.
Mikey was not violent or aggressive. He made no threats and addressed no swear words to the driver. The driver used his car like a weapon. He was the one who chose to risk causing property damage, serious injury or death.
Nonsense. Vigilantes give out punishments for real (or imagined) crimes. For example, the provisional IRA used to knee cap drug-dealers in Northern Ireland. Whereas, Mikey was trying to prevent a road traffic offence not dispense punishment.
The driver decided to drive on the wrong side of the road. It's not just about passing a No Entry sign. For him to use that lane safely there would have had to be a 3-way temporary traffic light system set up there.
If you watch the long video make by Mikey of the incident you can see the road layout. There is no way that lane could safely be used by cars travelling in both directions. If there was an exception to the No Entry sign for residents then there would be a one-way lane cordoned off for them or a temporary 3-way traffic light system. It's obvious that the driver just didn't want to drive round the diversion (he could still access the road on his far left by driving round and coming down the road on his far right).
A single lane with oncoming vehicles and no temporary traffic light system? That seems rather risky!
Nor did the driver ever make any attempt to tell Mikey he had an exception. (If you are correct he could have lied and avoided the whole incident, as Mikey had no way to check.)
The bottom line is that when you are driving a large motorised vehicle you have to be conscientious at all times. When he had the first contact with Mikey he should have reversed back and driven round the diversion rather than deciding to drive in a way which could cause a serious accident.