Video: "My name is Penis Head" — meet Britain's sweariest driver

Seriously?

Userfriendly I am stunned by your blinkered view.

userfriendly wrote:

No, it's also less of a hassle for any driver wanting to overtake. Take a group ride of 30 people. With two abreast you will have a lot more opportunities to overtake them safely than you would have if they were riding single file simply because it won't take you nearly as long to overtake them.

How much room on a single carriageway do two bikes abreast take up?

userfriendly wrote:

"The bad cyclist is going to get hurt and that is dangerous", are you serious? Someone above gave you the percentage of cases where that happens. It's 2% if I remember correctly. Stop this border case bullshit wagging and finally admit that in the vast majority of cases when "accidents" happen on the road, it's because of terrible driving. Of a motorised vehicle.

The vast majority of accidents are the driver's fault? even if that was the case it's still more dangerous for the cyclist isn't it?

iIt's not a border case that in an accident a cyclist tends to get injured, the bad ones get injured more often....

There are some reasonable people on this forum and I hope you are one of them..... try not to treat me as the enemy, instead why not open your eyes to the possibility that I am simply making a point and, contrary to your baseless assertions, a valid one - Just because it differs from yours does not mean it has no merit.

Please explain to me how a bad cyclist having getting involved in an accident that causes him injury is not dangerous - and saying he only hurts himself is not acceptable - anyone getting hurt is unacceptable in my book or, do you feel otherwise?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Cars have far more momentum/kinetic energy. Hence do far more damage. Also suffer less damage. Hence there's a greater incentive for cyclists to be careful. Also, really bad cyclists remove themselves from the road, if not the world, while bad drivers just carry on indefinitely (_even_ after killing people, as with Joao Lopes and many others, and of course even driving bans don't seem to stop many of them).

(As an aside, whenever I encounter a reckless/anti-social motorcyclist I end up thinking 'no point getting angry, he won't be around very long anyway', because motorcyclists seem much closer to cyclists in terms of paying for their own mistakes)

Plus _even_ when its a bad cyclist who makes the mistake, its still the presence of the car which creates the danger in the first place - cyclists on their own couldn't achieve that level of carnage, it requires a car to be present, even if its not the driver's error.

Is it ok that a bad cyclist removes himself from the gene pool because he wasn't any good?

On your second point I have had experience of that as well and you are right it was my presence that caused the accident....

Some cyclists racing down a Tour de France special stage (not race time) took a downhill blind bend at speed - I was coming the other way, they saw me and hit the brakes causing a pile up. I stayed with them for 30 mins administering first aid and waiting for an ambulance. I was on my side of the road and they were on theirs but if i had not been there would the pile up have happened?

So you could say it was my fault in which case you are correct and have proved your point but what you're effectively saying is that cyclists will be safe if there are no cars.

It's points like yours that concern me and make me feel that you don't want to share the road, you want it for yourself.

Every human life is important, be they good cyclists or bad motorists, just because i choose to have a safety cage around me doesn't mean i don't care about those who choose not to.

I thought we were getting somewhere with some mutual respect developing but sadly i now depart this conversation with the feeling that there will always be those who are holier than thou and blinkered as to other options.

I've learnt a lot, some good stuff and have a lot of food for thought so thanks for that. but at no point has anyone picked up on the humour or the detente.

Life isn't all about being right, sometimes it's about learning and gaining another perspective.

good night all.

@userfriendly it appears that you have lost your temper....
Whilst you retained it there was some hope that this would develop into an intellectual battle.

Sadly I cannot in good conscience engage in such a battle with an unarmed man.

Your polarised abusive stance means you've let yourself and those on this forum who are able to conduct themselves with good grace down.

Enjoy being right in your ivory tower, as i've said many times before being right does not shield you from harm on the road.

I sincerely hope whilst on the road you do not act in the manner in which you conduct yourself here.

Oh, and mandatory insurance for cyclists is a non-starter for the reasons alluded to above. Where do you draw the line? Does my 8yo need insurance to ride to school? What about horses, they use roads too. Pedestrians? It'd be pointlessly expensive to administer with vanishingly small benefit. Motor vehicles are required to have insurance because they have the capacity to cause enormous damage. Bikes simply don't have that capacity, because physics.

@userfriendly, Accusing someone of being a troll is just one way of deflecting the argument you appear to be telling me to look at your perspective whilst refusing to do the same. I sadly choose not to respond to you any further. Sadly, as I sense that if we met face to face this conversation would be a lot more fun and we may have more in common than you realise.

To the other posters,

Why I am not responding to everyones points is because I've either already done so or because it's got to the point where they are hidden in one of many long posts and I may have missed them.

I'm gratified that we're still engaging but you can keep quoting stats at me til the cows come home we all know there are lies, damn lies and stats don't we. I'm not ignoring the fact that most cyclists are also drivers but that goes for good and bad ones too, and lets be honest we all know the extremists who are militant in their cycling and those who are the same with cars. That's not the issue, i only ignore it because it's not important who drives and who doesn't it's about an general feeling I have that i was asking about.

I'm simply talking from my real world experience and giving an opinion - i am experiencing an opposing opinion from you, It seems somewhat draconian and oppressive to suggest that your opinion is right and anything else is rubbish - stats only go so far they are not the be all and end all. Surely that's the point of a discussion forum or would you prefer I do not put forward my views... if that's the case please tell me and i will happily go back to doing what i should be!

In the interim I will answer a point or two...

Cyclists should indeed get all the room they need.

However, if you imagine the volume of cars / cyclists on a city street it's not practical to give them all a cars width because you would spend all your time on the wrong side of the road....

So the answer is - don't overtake? in theory yes i agree but practically who wants to drive everywhere at the speed of a bike?
So where do you go from there?

Obviously specific cycle paths would be the best option but in the absence of those and the fact that sharing is the reality it means that cyclists are going to lose out.... it's not right but it is the reality.

On the subject of insurance, you've used the argument that a car is more dangerous than a cyclist due to (wrongly in my opinion) the application of order of magnitude, the same could be said for cyclists versus pedestrians no? ok that may be a bit tongue in cheek but there's always a bigger fish somewhere!

I believe all those who are legally bound to use the road instead of the pavement should at the very least be covered with third party insurance, so not pedestrians but cyclists, horses, cars bikes, trucks and segways (which are currently illegal in this country because of insurance issues)

By the way perhaps it's worth making a point that seems to have been lost......

When i say things like "it's not right but it is the reality"
I'm just highlighting the status quo, I am not saying I agree with it I am just saying that is how things are - in fact most of the time I disagree with it.

I have no issue with cyclists, I would prefer things to be better so I could be one again but lets be honest things are rubbish and the car driver gets blamed all the time, as someone said earlier the accident occurs just because the car is there whether it's the cars fault or not.......

'Oh, and mandatory insurance for cyclists is a non-starter for the reasons alluded to above. Where do you draw the line? Does my 8yo need insurance to ride to school? What about horses, they use roads too. Pedestrians? It'd be pointlessly expensive to administer with vanishingly small benefit. '

Where do you draw the line for insurance for cyclists? At cyclists. Not horses or pedestrians. Surely that's pretty obvious.

@Harry_J

"It's points like yours that concern me and make me feel that you don't want to share the road, you want it for yourself. "

Well, yes, to some degree I do. I want a fair share of it. I want to see separation as much as possible (by no means do all cyclists agree on this, mind! Not by a very long way!), I want a fair share of roadspace to be re-allocated to modes of travel that are more space-efficient than cars. There just isn't room on the roads to give so much emphasis to cars, there isn't the space (in cities).

It would also be nice if the really bad motorists were in fact taken off the road long-term by legal means instead of being given very short driving bans (that many of them ignore anyway).

"With great power comes great responsibility" (so said one of the Spiderman movies!). Either motorists need to behave perfectly - because they are the ones creating the danger - or more needs to be done to take some roadspace away from them to keep others safe.

Harry_J. I may not agree with some of your points but kudos to you on the way you're handling yourself in the face of foaming-mouth sweary ranting.

@Harry_J

"Is it ok that a bad cyclist removes himself from the gene pool because he wasn't any good? "

Sorry, but you completely miss the point here, which is that a bad motorist can cause _repeated_ injuries and deaths because _they_ aren't the ones taken off the road.

I could point you to cases of bad drivers who killed or maimed cyclists and pedestrians multiple times. I seriously doubt you could show me one of a bad cyclist who died more than once!

This has nothing to do with a whether bad cyclist deaths are 'OK'. The point is they can only happen once. Even bad injuries are likely to cause a cyclist to decide to give it up. Being a crap road cyclist is self-limiting (the same may be true for crap motorcyclists).

This is just one factor that explains the recorded facts - that accidents involving motorised vehicles and bikes are far more likely to be due to errors by the driver. The crap drivers stay out there, adding to the tally of driver errors and repeatedly getting away with it, the crap cyclists don't.

(If the legal system worked perfectly, of course, this wouldn't be the case, but sadly it really doesn't, not by a very long way).

I'm sorry that people are getting irate on here. But any serious topic (and it is serious, becuase people are dying on the roads) where people are just never going to agree is likely to get heated eventually. (Plus, you know, this is the internet, that's how it is).

It's absolutely obvious. Why would you need to consider horse riders if you were deciding if cyclists should be insured? If you are deciding if *all road users* need to be insured, I could see why equestrians would come into the equation. Otherwise, you may as well include whether or not some windsurfer sails are red, as this is equally irrelevant. I'm not sure you've got the hang of this.

In terms of the ages within the cycling group - yes.

Harry J - I can see that you are trying as hard as you can to make a reasoned argument; your English is good and you clearly spend a lot of time crafting each post you make on this website. You don't swear or use insulting language and, in my view, have every right to express your opinion.

However, it is widely accepted that, when debating, if a number of people are able to debunk your theory using well-researched facts from peer-reviewed studies, you should concede to the opposition, or at least produce some facts to bolster your argument, rather than falling back on the same anecdotes and suppositions that have seen you widely mocked on this forum. To endlessly repeat the same point is, at best, a breathtaking display of ignorance and, at worst, simple trolling.

I love commuting, racing and trekking by bicycle. I also love racing and road trips in cars. I'm not showing off, merely proving that petrol runs in my veins, when I tell you that my own car is a Ferrari 355. Guess when I feel most at risk? Is it on the track, or on the autobahn at 150mph? No, it's when commuting through central London on a bicycle. Why? Because some people are inattentive, impatient morons. These traits manifest themselves as dangerous driving, nuisance cycling and careless...err...pedestrian-ing. The great divide between cyclists and motorists is entirely in your head.

I cannot believe that you honestly think that, when cycling, I should just accept that I might die or be severely injured because some idiot in a car just can't wait five seconds to join the back of the next traffic queue. When someone is killed by a car when walking on a pavement, we don't as a society just throw our arms in the air and say "oh well, shit happens" - there is outrage. Deaths caused by drink drivers aren't simply ignored because "that's what happens when pubs have car parks" - we've made it socially unacceptable and legally very serious to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. When I'm cycling, I pose an infinitesimal risk to others around me. The ridiculous notion that one car might swerve into another when avoiding me is just that - ridiculous. Even if it were to happen, the occupants of the cars will be fine.

I suggest you just give it up, because you're not going to win the argument, especially on a bike forum. I would be interested to see what sort of response you get in the "Pedal Powered" section of PistonHeads. I would hope it is similar to the response you've had here on road.cc.

Mmmmm - couldn't you guys be out riding bikes with the time you're spending on here arguing about a video?

Just a note on the mandatory insurance for cyclists. ALL household contents policy's provide cover for your legal liability (third party insurance) when cycling on the road or even illegally on the pavement.

I used to be an underwriter for a large household insurance company and the cost of this insurance was considered to be less that 10p on the price of a £150 policy.

Why was it so low ? .... Well, on a book of business with over 2 million policyholders we had 2 claims in 4 years. Only one of which resulted in a payment to a third party. The other we defend as the cyclist hadn't done anything wrong.

So the vast majority of cyclist do have insurance, even if they don't know it.

Ah, as I thought. You've missed the point completely.

I thought it funny that in all the fuss no one has pointed out that this guy's head, does indeed, look like a penis.

HarryJ the more you look into this the more you will come to accept that what may at first seem apparent is not born out by facts, you seem a reasonable guy so I'm sure you will get there in the end. You will find that there are problems caused by lack of infrastructure, education and enforcement but most of the crap is caused by dickheads. Dickheads of course can use any form of conveyance, you never know who they are until too late and when two meet hilarity usually ensues.

It seems the thread has gone a little OT so please could we take a brief interlude in this riveting argument that we have had numerous times before with various folk to have another laugh at Mr "Penishead Cockfacedcunt"

I do hope that you made a trip to your local Police team and showed them the video, he has committed driving without due care, and public order offences. Best of all it's been recorded for the magistrates to watch.

He truly is a penis head.

Usually road users give way to their right.

The cyclist looked right and saw it was safe to proceed.

The motorist was on the left and did not give the traffic to his right right of way.

So replace the cyclist with a motor vehicle and the situation would have been a front/side impact accident.

I'm a motorist 98% of the time, but a triathlete the rest of the time.

"So the answer is - don't overtake? in theory yes i agree but practically who wants to drive everywhere at the speed of a bike?
So where do you go from there?"

Get a bike?

Can we avoid the use of "accident" please, crashes may not be deliberate but most are avoidable, therefore not an accident.

Harry_J wrote:

imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?

Or her. It's called not giving sufficient space.

Have to agree, just give video to the police to decide. Quite clearly the cyclist looked to their right, and entered the roundabout when safe to do so. The car was absolutely flying along! Quite clearly didn't look or didn't see the cyclist. The driver is clearly at fault here. Sure the reversing back round corner and bursting into road rage isn't that legal either. Attempts to defend his actions are pointless

Just to drag this hilarious thread a little bit back towards topic, I remain incredulous at drivers such as this. It seems a prevalent attitude amongst the 4 wheeled community (of which I am also one, 2 cars on the drive, 2 motorcycles in the garage, one of which is about to be chopped in for a new one (woohoo!) and 3 bicycles gently purring in their stable) that they are not, under any circumstance, allowed to be criticised by a cyclist, regardless of what they may have done wrong. I'll elaborate. Car driver commits driving error. Be it close pass, high speed close pass, close pass through pinch point, left hook, overtaking directly towards you, SMIDSY, just don't fucking see you or care either way 'cos you're just a cyclist. Said cyclist shows their displeasure at what the driver's done, as in this case. Driver then further abuses cyclist, either by gesture, verbally or physically. The physically never happens to me, unfortunately, despite being my lowest weight for years, I still look like a cage fighter, but my point is this; the driver's fucked up, but they are not allowed to be criticised. They've done something wrong, but as "just a cyclist", you're not allowed to make any comment or indication that their near miss, which would've seriously hurt or even killed you, has made you unhappy. However, not only are they "allowed" to execute such a manouevre, if you do happen to show your ire at it, they are further allowed to act in a selfish and entitled manner and call your pint a puff. Why is this? Do people go through some sort of mindshift when they get behind the wheel of a car? Or are we, as a society, incapable of accepting criticism, especially when in control of a two ton motorised vehicle? Maybe it's just me...

Nope, it's not just you. I think some of it has to do with how we as a society regard cars. Yes, they may have made an error but they're the grown ups operating the grown up stuff, and you're just playing with your kids toy, how dare you criticise them ...

And some of it of course has to do with such people being complete and utter muppets regardless of whether they're in a car or not. It's not all drivers - I've had some drivers apologise to me, and I do not look like a cage fighter.

I also have to say, as others have already pointed out, that the story which you put forward here about what led you to this thread on this website isn't exactly what I would call plausible. Bit dodgy, TBH.

Harry_J = TROLL

Anyone checked the video timings? Approaching the roundabout the car covers approaching 30 feet in 0.2 seconds, and then check the distance he takes to stop after noticing that the cyclist has crashed/stopped abruptly. Not exactly 30mph - especially when the revving engine is also clearly heard on the approach.

Camera position/angle could have been better though, a bit too much sky.

oh and this is the email I got.....

On 18 Jun 2014, at 14:55, andy wrote:

From: andy Subject: [your-subject]

Message Body:
I see you are connected with the guy in this news article – do you really think this is wise?
http://road.cc/content/news/121405-video-my-name-penis-head-—-meet-britains-sweariest-driver

--

Did I swear at you?

No i simply stated my opinion based on your conduct and ability to grasp basic English thus far....
Oh and yes i am being somewhat passive aggressive in my patronising disparaging commentary.. It was my way of checking you were reading what i was typing....

On part two, It's a joke.....

Think about a nagging wife saying that to her husband....

I apologise. It was silly of me to consider subtle humour was within your skill set. Seriously, explaining things just gets boring.

it appears that the old mantra rings true...

If you're the smartest person in a room................
You're in the wrong room.

Andy,

Thank you for clarifying that, much appreciated.

I agree this thread has run it's course which is a shame as it actually does debate a very important set of points.

I can understand why at first glance you thought we might not engage but if you dig deeper (which i sense you may have done already) you will find that our ethic is about having fun in safety, driving in appropriate locations and respecting our surroundings.

As I eluded to earlier with my comments about Dunsfold - we are the 'driving force' behind a large scale charity event that benefits children with acquired brain trauma - a high percentage of which come from RTA's so I am very well acquainted with the dangers cars present on the road - I'm one of those that tries to assist those who have suffered from them.

When i say large scale i mean Chris Evans turned up yesterday as he did the year before, last year we had 12,000 people through the gates across 2 days and this year we think it will be more...This morning i am truly shattered.

It's sad that people can no longer accept things at face value, i've not tried to pretend i'm something i'm not or that i am right all the time, but it seems that every opinion voiced needs to be proven before it is even considered, i guess that's just human nature based on experience in this era.....Andy you said it much better than i did.

I have learnt a lot (as i said a long time ago) I was hoping for a more pleasant debate that focussed on the issues at large instead of focussing my sentence construction but C'est la vie, n'est pas?

Once again Andy thank you for proving to me that i'm not completely nuts about receiving your email ( was starting to wonder for a moment)

To everyone else, please stay safe I wish you well.