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

Harry_J wrote:

Some very interesting observations here, I understand the concern that i may be trolling but let me say that i like a good debate and am always happy to accept a reasoned argument that differs from my own.

With that in mind, @700c I see what you are saying about my blanket observations and i may well have been unfair in making them as sweeping as I did... my only defence was that this being a cycling forum I was asking a broad question and also (incorrectly) felt that the atmosphere of conflict between cyclists and motorists would be an accepted situation.

So let me withdraw that aspect if I may, my examples were simply to highlight that it is not a one way street and perhaps to give an insight into how a motorist sees things.

I also accept that cyclists are motorists as well and no doubt see the same things time and again.

Personally i despair when I see dangerous and inconsiderate driving, there's way to much of it. I drive all over the world and find UK roads to be the worst in terms of awareness and indeed general 'niceness' the only nation i have found that are less aware than us are the Belgians!

In terms of my comment about bad cyclists being as dangerous as bad drivers perhaps you're only looking at it from one side......

A bad cyclist is far more likely to get hurt than a bad driver and even though the danger is to themselves it still has repercussions to their family, to the motorist that is involved, the healthcare, police and passers by, perhaps you took it as me suggesting that a bad cyclist might injure someone else? it's less likely that will happen but it is still possible.

A bad motorist might well hit a cyclist and that's a nightmare, but if they hit another car in traffic (i'm talking slow seeds here) then it's not a big deal - a few metal scrapes and exchange of insurance details.

Whilst i'm on that subject - insurance - if a cyclist hits a car and damages it who pays? if a cyclist hurts someone, who pays for that?

it's not a danger thing but it would be interesting to know if some of the bad cyclists might improve if they had to pay third party insurance and some sort of no claims was in jeopardy if they were involved in a collision or altercation?

Finally, I concede the point that we're talking about a few bad apples here not cyclists as a group - most are fine and the co existence with those is working well, however if i can concede that point is there a similar concession to motorists?

I will happily debate Newtonian physics with you, which law would you like to start with?

Yes, most drivers are perfectly good, most of the time. Two problems though - first, even good drivers still cost the rest of us money, and you still seem to believe that somehow a mistake made on a bike is as bad as a mistake made when in control of a few tonnes of metal.

Harry_J wrote:

Ok, I'm on the verge of giving up, there's too much out of context quoting and what appears to me deliberate point scoring without wanting to take a point of view on board.

If you want me to say you're right ok, I will, but I'm going to try one last time:

A bad cyclist is dangerous, more so than a bad driver.... TO HIMSELF. The bad cyclist is going to get hurt and that is dangerous.

No, I'm not quoting you out of context. I was quoting one particular thing, anyone reading this thread has the context to it right at hand. And I get your point of view - it's just that it's a point of view completely ignorant of basic physics and any and all accident statistics.

Yes, you may have an opinion - but that doesn't mean it's automagically an opinion worth having just because you happen to be the one having it. If it's not got any merit, don't keep clinging to it just because it's yours. That's childish.

"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.

Anything is else just plain obvious apologetic nonsense. And no, there aren't two sides about it of which one is not looked at just because you're on a road cycling website, FFS ...

Harry_J wrote:

I get the idea of giving cyclists room, I even get the riding two abrest - it's far more sociable

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.

@Harry_J

Well the roads are certainly a lot more dangerous with a tosser such as you driving on them. I hope you are prosecuted, your license taken away and your awful car crushed. A spell in prison would do you good or picking up litter the length of the central reservation of the M1 for 2 years.

Harry_J wrote:

I disagree by the way, bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers...... imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?...

That's a hypothetical situation that *may* possibly happen. I doubt it's more common than one in ten thousand, and the driver is likely to prang another metal box with only property damage.

In other words, this is a red herring, and not a valid counterpoint in the argument. Not having a go, you just haven't thought this through.

In nearly all accidents, the party bringing the most kinetic energy causes lots of damage and sustains little.

Basically, crap cyclists are annoying, and at most a (slight) danger to other cyclists or pedestrians. Drivers kill quite a number of pedestrians ON PAVEMENTS each year. Pretty clear where the danger lies.

Harry_J wrote:

I don't want to hit a cyclist, or anyone... it's a horrific thing to happen

Yes, it is. Being hit is worse.

Harry_J wrote:

A fair question, so, considering I'm not a lawyer or a cop....

By the look of it he didn't give way to traffic..... because he
a. didn't see it
b. saw it and didn't care
c. saw it and judged it

by his reaction i would suggest it was 'a.' so whilst dangerous it's not a crime (i think?)

his reaction afterwards was over the top but there were no blows and the verbal assault was both ways... he was in the wrong but i'm not sure if an actual crime was committed? - I don't know for sure.

I'm guessing it's based on fear and adrenaline... we've all seen it - doesn't make it right but you can see where it came from.

The thing i don't get is the reversing - i've no clue about the legalities of that manoeuvre so perhaps that's where the law may get involved?

Overall i can't see the police being interested, it's wrong as there should be a yellow card system so it's logged but sadly there's stuff like this going on al the time.

That's just based on a dispassionate view....i've already said above i would not want to defend this and that he was in the wrong... it was a lucky escape for the cyclist and i'm glad it was just a verbal clash in the end.

Thanks for replying.

The Police could have quite a lot of things to pick up on. The overall question is whether they, and the CPS would consider that careless driving or dangerous driving.

For your first point, about whether the driver saw the cyclist, he of course should have done. Failing to observe, can on it's own constitute careless driving. If he didn't care, that would be dangerous driving.

The cyclists saw the driver, if you check the video carefully, he first sounds his air-horn whilst the driver was still two car lengths behind the give way line. The driver didn't need to see, if he was at the correct speed he would have heard. The question to consider, is whether a traffic officer would stop a vehicle if it saw them negotiate the junction in such a way, and even without the cyclist the driver would have been stopped for failing to slow sufficiently.

The matter which is of most concern to the readers here, is the drivers attitude. The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, and actually are very forgiving of driving errors. It's part of the ethos of "defensive cycling", you accept that everyone makes mistakes, and so you aren't just observing the traffic, you are thinking about whether the driver has seen you, positioning yourself to be visible and sometimes to assert control.

I had a minor incident yesterday, something that will sometimes happen. I driver who hadn't seen me pulled out of a sideroad. I had already seen that he'd missed me so I was slowing, he then saw me on the second look, braked, and the hand come off the wheel to say sorry. All forgiven, no complaints, I know that driver will have learnt something and will improve, and I know that because he apologised straight away.

Drivers that don't do that, make driving errors and then defend them are an absolute danger to everyone. The laws are already there to deal with them, my hope is that the Police and the CPS focus more on this small number of seriously dangerous driver who represent a disproportionately large risk to cyclists.

Harry_J wrote:

You know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

Do you know my version of insanity?

Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. - Benjamin Netanyahu - May 2012.

Harry_J wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

I'm still curious what action will be taken against the driver. Having thought about it I've realised that reversing back over a roundabout is actually a very serious offence. The bloke in the Jag is a nutter and his behaviour suggests his temperament is not well suited to being a licence holder.

Harry J - you've been subject to a lot of insults that aren't particularly fair. But please don't stand up for this bully behind the wheel. While he may be a thoroughly decent fellow in other respects, his standard of driving is dangerously deficient.

You are correct I've been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I've also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?

i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I've said i don't know if it's Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions..... please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i've said not the ones you'd like to respond to. This isn't politics!

I'm a driver and motorcyclist too and one with an IAM course booked as it happens. By far the majority of adult cyclists are drivers also, which isn't widely appreciated by those who don't cycle. I'm as much a cyclist as I am a car driver or a motorcyclist and I suspect the majority of the people on this website would say the same, as only a few don't drive.

I took your responses to be supportive of the Jaguar owner, though I appreciate you said the person you know doesn't look like the person who committed the driving offences. I did look at the person's Facebook page following a link posted in this thread and let's just say some of the images showed someone who could've been the person in the video.

I do think the police need to be involved. Whoever it was driving the Jaguar at the time has committed a number of offences and his behaviour suggests he is not a suitable person to hold a driver's licence. A licence is a permit to drive, that is not a right. This aggressive driver is clearly unsafe behind the wheel and that means he presents a danger to other road users of all types, whether cyclist, motorcyclist or car, van or bus occupant.

As I remember, the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for offences committed in it unless the keeper can identify who was at the wheel at the time. While there may be an element of doubt as to who was driving, the vehicle is highly distinctive and its registration plate has been identified on the soundtrack.

Airzound wrote:

@Harry_J

Well the roads are certainly a lot more dangerous with a tosser such as you driving on them. I hope you are prosecuted, your license taken away and your awful car crushed. A spell in prison would do you good or picking up litter the length of the central reservation of the M1 for 2 years.

And what crime have i actually committed?

Discussing an issue with you?
Or are you throwing baseless accusations around?

I think it would be better if you stick to the facts rather than calculating a million from 2+2

I see no value in swearing or threatening someone you don't know or wishing harm to them.....
In honesty you're exhibiting the traits from the guy in the video far more than I am but i am not accusing you of being him am I?

jacknorell wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

I disagree by the way, bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers...... imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?...

That's a hypothetical situation that *may* possibly happen. I doubt it's more common than one in ten thousand, and the driver is likely to prang another metal box with only property damage.

In other words, this is a red herring, and not a valid counterpoint in the argument. Not having a go, you just haven't thought this through.

In nearly all accidents, the party bringing the most kinetic energy causes lots of damage and sustains little.

Basically, crap cyclists are annoying, and at most a (slight) danger to other cyclists or pedestrians. Drivers kill quite a number of pedestrians ON PAVEMENTS each year. Pretty clear where the danger lies.

Harry_J wrote:

I don't want to hit a cyclist, or anyone... it's a horrific thing to happen

Yes, it is. Being hit is worse.

Yes being hit is worse and i would not wish that on anyone.

I've already said numerous times that i'm not saying the situation we currently face is ok, i don't like it either.
but it is all we've got isn't it... what are you actually doing about safeguarding yourselves? fighting against compulsory helmets, crowing when a german throws out contributory negligence when a cyclist is injured without one?

To me that's nuts..... cycling is dangerous... that's just the way it is, to clarify... it's not right but that's all we've got so we have to make the best of it.

You can get on your high horse (or saddle) and be right if you want but if you don't ride assuming that you'll have an accident without eyes in the back of your head you will be right and injured and I don't like that idea at all.

bikebot wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

A fair question, so, considering I'm not a lawyer or a cop....

By the look of it he didn't give way to traffic..... because he
a. didn't see it
b. saw it and didn't care
c. saw it and judged it

by his reaction i would suggest it was 'a.' so whilst dangerous it's not a crime (i think?)

his reaction afterwards was over the top but there were no blows and the verbal assault was both ways... he was in the wrong but i'm not sure if an actual crime was committed? - I don't know for sure.

I'm guessing it's based on fear and adrenaline... we've all seen it - doesn't make it right but you can see where it came from.

The thing i don't get is the reversing - i've no clue about the legalities of that manoeuvre so perhaps that's where the law may get involved?

Overall i can't see the police being interested, it's wrong as there should be a yellow card system so it's logged but sadly there's stuff like this going on al the time.

That's just based on a dispassionate view....i've already said above i would not want to defend this and that he was in the wrong... it was a lucky escape for the cyclist and i'm glad it was just a verbal clash in the end.

Thanks for replying.

The Police could have quite a lot of things to pick up on. The overall question is whether they, and the CPS would consider that careless driving or dangerous driving.

For your first point, about whether the driver saw the cyclist, he of course should have done. Failing to observe, can on it's own constitute careless driving. If he didn't care, that would be dangerous driving.

The cyclists saw the driver, if you check the video carefully, he first sounds his air-horn whilst the driver was still two car lengths behind the give way line. The driver didn't need to see, if he was at the correct speed he would have heard. The question to consider, is whether a traffic officer would stop a vehicle if it saw them negotiate the junction in such a way, and even without the cyclist the driver would have been stopped for failing to slow sufficiently.

The matter which is of most concern to the readers here, is the drivers attitude. The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, and actually are very forgiving of driving errors. It's part of the ethos of "defensive cycling", you accept that everyone makes mistakes, and so you aren't just observing the traffic, you are thinking about whether the driver has seen you, positioning yourself to be visible and sometimes to assert control.

I had a minor incident yesterday, something that will sometimes happen. I driver who hadn't seen me pulled out of a sideroad. I had already seen that he'd missed me so I was slowing, he then saw me on the second look, braked, and the hand come off the wheel to say sorry. All forgiven, no complaints, I know that driver will have learnt something and will improve, and I know that because he apologised straight away.

Drivers that don't do that, make driving errors and then defend them are an absolute danger to everyone. The laws are already there to deal with them, my hope is that the Police and the CPS focus more on this small number of seriously dangerous driver who represent a disproportionately large risk to cyclists.

No argument from me on those points at all, we have an accord.

Have a good night.

farrell wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

You know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

Do you know my version of insanity?

Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. - Benjamin Netanyahu - May 2012.

Very good your subtlety is noted...... but leave the Israeli's alone they're not trying to run you over....
ok so maybe not Einstein, Ben Franklin or Mark Twain perhaps?
It's unattributed officially but Einstein is the popular choice so i chose him for ease. The repeating of a dangerous act was the point not the grey haired relativitist.

Harry_J wrote:

To me that's nuts..... cycling is dangerous... that's just the way it is, to clarify... it's not right but that's all we've got so we have to make the best of it.

No, cycling isn't dangerous. Most drivers aren't either.

However, impatient, reckless, or hostile drivers are dangerous and are the ones doing the killing and maiming.

We need to address what's killing people, not blaming the victim. In aviation, we fix the underlying problems, we don't blame the passengers for dying when a plane goes down, saying: "You shouldn't have flown".

Cycling is, in fact, immensely safe. In many countries it's massively safer, in large part because society has decided that drivers need to be policed and face consequences if necessary.

As a cyclist (and, btw, IAM driver and motorcyclist), I am riding defensively. That is all I can do to 'keep myself safe'. I can't change others' behaviour, which may end up killing me because a driver takes a, for them, 'acceptable chance' with their vehicle.

If you think I should be held responsible for someone else's actions, I would have some very strong words for you.

jacknorell wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

To me that's nuts..... cycling is dangerous... that's just the way it is, to clarify... it's not right but that's all we've got so we have to make the best of it.

No, cycling isn't dangerous. Most drivers aren't either.

However, impatient, reckless, or hostile drivers are dangerous and are the ones doing the killing and maiming.

We need to address what's killing people, not blaming the victim. In aviation, we fix the underlying problems, we don't blame the passengers for dying when a plane goes down, saying: "You shouldn't have flown".

Cycling is, in fact, immensely safe. In many countries it's massively safer, in large part because society has decided that drivers need to be policed and face consequences if necessary.

As a cyclist (and, btw, IAM driver and motorcyclist), I am riding defensively. That is all I can do to 'keep myself safe'. I can't change others' behaviour, which may end up killing me because a driver takes a, for them, 'acceptable chance' with their vehicle.

If you think I should be held responsible for someone else's actions, I would have some very strong words for you.

I can't help myself...

Ok i will bite.

IAM teaches more than just defensive driving/riding, it adds common sense to the mix, risk assessment, not just of the road conditions but of your own situation, i'm sure you know that.

The simple fact that you say something needs to change, and that you can't change others behaviour means you know that the risks are real.

I'm not holding you responsible....I've lost count of the number of times in this discussion i've said it isn't right but it's all we have....

I'm simply trying to say that the reality of the situation is that you may well be in the right, but you will be the injured one whether you are right or wrong.
Those are the risks you accept every day you ride...

I reiterate it's not right, it's just the way things are... you can't change it by blaming and shouting at people or even saying strong words to me. I didn't make the situation i'm just trying to show it for what it is;

You hit me in my car, you're in the wrong, you get hurt.
I hit you in my car, i'm in the wrong, you get hurt.

It's not fair is it.... all i'm saying is being right doesn't armour you like iron man. Don't shoot the messenger, especially when he's meant to be working.

farrell wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

You know Einstein's definition of insanity?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

Do you know my version of insanity?

Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. - Benjamin Netanyahu - May 2012.

Yep, it's attribution to Einstein is a popular fabrication. The other common Einstein quote concerning God and Dice is heavily paraphrased.

The expression most probably originated as a popular truism repeated within addiction groups such as the AA, and can't be attributed to any individual famous or otherwise.

Twat. So no-one has any responsibilty then?. That's the way it is, take it or leave it.

If your'e "just as vulnerable in my car" as a bike why are you even on the road then? Moron.

Everyone else's fault.

Harry_J wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

I'm still curious what action will be taken against the driver. Having thought about it I've realised that reversing back over a roundabout is actually a very serious offence. The bloke in the Jag is a nutter and his behaviour suggests his temperament is not well suited to being a licence holder.

Harry J - you've been subject to a lot of insults that aren't particularly fair. But please don't stand up for this bully behind the wheel. While he may be a thoroughly decent fellow in other respects, his standard of driving is dangerously deficient.

You are correct I've been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I've also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?

i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I've said i don't know if it's Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions..... please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i've said not the ones you'd like to respond to. This isn't politics!

Ok actual words you've said:

Quote:

bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers

You are clearly an idiot.

Harry_J wrote:

andybwhite wrote:

Bad cyclists are a nuisance and there are a fair few of them but generally they tend to risk only their own neck.
However, bad motorists kill and maim other people. One is too many.

That's an interesting point but it doesn't answer the main question.

What i'm trying to say is that motorists and cyclists are a fact of road life.
Scoring points, however logical is a battle that takes more energy to fight than will ever be recovered surely life is too short to have that attitude?

I disagree by the way, bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers...... imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?

I don't think i can subscribe to the 'it's ok to be a bad cyclist because you'll only kill yourself' that's not an excuse...

I don't want to hit a cyclist, or anyone... it's a horrific thing to happen

Imagine reading the highway code, you know, the bit where it talks about giving cyclists room because they may have to make sudden manoeuvres? Or have advanced motorists advanced beyond such trivia?

climber wrote:

Twat. So no-one has any responsibilty then?. That's the way it is, take it or leave it.

If your'e "just as vulnerable in my car" as a bike why are you even on the road then? Moron.

Everyone else's fault.

Oh please can't you even post a response without swearing at me?
If you disagree that's fine but if you swear or lose your temper yo've lost the argument.

Please don't quote a snippet of my text and put your own context into it, once again scoring points in a battle noone is keeping track of.....

is that 20 - nil to you? well done my son

Bikebikebike wrote:

Harry_J wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

I'm still curious what action will be taken against the driver. Having thought about it I've realised that reversing back over a roundabout is actually a very serious offence. The bloke in the Jag is a nutter and his behaviour suggests his temperament is not well suited to being a licence holder.

Harry J - you've been subject to a lot of insults that aren't particularly fair. But please don't stand up for this bully behind the wheel. While he may be a thoroughly decent fellow in other respects, his standard of driving is dangerously deficient.

You are correct I've been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I've also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?

i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I've said i don't know if it's Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions..... please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i've said not the ones you'd like to respond to. This isn't politics!

Ok actual words you've said:

Quote:

bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers

You are clearly an idiot.

Helpful, thanks....
At least I know what you think, fortunately i'm not the sort of person who judges myself by the words of those who know nothing about me.

However, in my view that sort of insulting judgement says more about you than it does about me.

I wish you all the best and hope you stay safe on the roads.

Harry_J wrote:

Helpful, thanks....
At least I know what you think, fortunately i'm not the sort of person who judges myself by the words of those who know nothing about me.

However, in my view that sort of insulting judgement says more about you than it does about me.

I wish you all the best and hope you stay safe on the roads.

This is annoying because I had a post I was going to make explaining in detail why 'bad cyclists are as dangerous as bad drivers' was objectively wrong, and it began with the observation that its dispiriting that someone as obviously reasonable and non-idiotic as Harry_J here nonetheless believed in this myth.

(Then went on to Newtonian physics, psychology, neo-Darwinism and police statistics - but fill it in for yourselves, I can't be bothered now!)

I think it is significant though, that lots of perfectly normal, non idiotic people, still somehow cling to this obviously wrong belief. The default state is for human beings to believe the things that its convenient for them to believe, according to their circumstances.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I think it is significant though, that lots of perfectly normal, non idiotic people, still somehow cling to this obviously wrong belief. The default state is for human beings to believe the things that its convenient for them to believe, according to their circumstances.

Or as the Indy put it, in one of my all time favourite headlines - "British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-abou...

bikebot wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I think it is significant though, that lots of perfectly normal, non idiotic people, still somehow cling to this obviously wrong belief. The default state is for human beings to believe the things that its convenient for them to believe, according to their circumstances.

Or as the Indy put it, in one of my all time favourite headlines - "British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-abou...

Oh dear. Not much else to be said really!
(the beliefs about teenage pregnancy are particularly, dramatically, wrong - wonder where that comes from?)

Classic headline though.

Harry_J wrote:

Hiya,

I've been emailed from someone called Andy with a link to this site and video as my company is linked on the Dreamshack site and I've met Mark a couple of times a few years ago.

I tried to reply to the email but it was a false address so i'd just like to post my reply to it here...

Seems legit. I'm sure that there are lots of people who would think it perfectly reasonable to set up a false email account to anonymously warn a total stranger that his company is linked on this clown's website. Doesn't seem at all far fetched.

Harry_J wrote:

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

Would you care to explain how this would be possible? If the driver was driving in a lawful manner, he would be behind the swerving cyclist. The driver would not need to alter his course at all. Unless, of course, the driver is overtaking, in which case he would be giving the cyclist same amount of room as if he were passing a car, and again the driver would not need to alter his course. He would have left ample room for a cyclist to swerve.

The only way the car would need to be taking evasive action would be if the driver was driving in an unsafe manner. Would that be the rider's fault?

Official figures show that in collisions between cyclists and motorists, the motorist was solely to blame in 75% of cases. When cyclists are injured, only 2% of cases are caused by 'bad' riding (wearing dark clothes at night, not having lights, jumping red lights, etc).

I drive, I ride a scooter, and I cycle. Even taking into account that there are more cars on the road, the amount of terrible drivers I see every day is terrifying.

Drivers holding their phones to their ears. Drivers jumping red lights. Drivers pulling out of parking spots suddenly without indicating or checking if it's clear. Drivers parking on double yellows with their hazard lights on whilst they 'just pop in' somewhere, blocking visibility on junctions. Drivers speeding. Drivers honking their horns and tailgating people for doing the speed limit. Drivers passing cyclists far too closely. Drivers honking other drivers for not overtaking cyclists (or tractors, or horses), even though it would be dangerous to do so. Drivers not giving way at traffic calming measures. Drivers not giving way at junctions. I see this whether I'm riding, driving or walking, every single day.

On the other hand, I saw a cyclist jump a red light two years ago. I'll occasionally see a cyclist out at night without lights, and think 'dick', but it's pretty rare. I do see a lot of cyclists on the pavement, but where I live has a lot of random 'bike paths' that are just a line painted down a pavement, so a good chunk of that is understandable.

It's also utterly baffling given that cyclists don't need a license to be on the road, and motorcyclists can ride around on a 125cc bike that can do 60mph on a CBT - you'd think that given that the driving test is supposed to be so thorough that motorists would, on average, be better on the road, not far, far worse.

Or maybe it's not that baffling - as other people have mentioned, when you're on two wheels, whether pedal or engine powered, you're a lot more vulnerable than if you're in your safe metal box with crumple zones, seatbelts and airbags. Because driving is seen as a natural right of passage into adulthood, people start taking it for granted and seem to forget that they're in control of large, powerful machinery where one moment's inattention can easily kill someone.

For example, once I was riding home on my bike (of the pedal variety). There was a set of lights. They were on green. I approached and starting riding through the lights, only for a guy in a Mini coming from the opposite direction try to turn right across me, even though I had right of way. I slammed my brakes on, he did as well... then he looked at me, and shook his head. I'm not entirely sure what was going through his head - but the point is that he probably wouldn't have done that if I'd been making the same journey in my Vectra.

If he'd hit me on my bike or scooter, I would have had grazes and bruises at the very least, and possibly a knackered bike. He'd probably drive off before I could take his details, and my report to the police would probably be met with polite indifference and a shrug.

If he'd hit me in my car, there would probably be no injuries on either side, and some scrunched car bodywork on both that his insurance would have to pay out for.

TL;DR - In the majority of cases, cyclists aren't to blame for accidents, motorists are. When a cyclists rides badly, generally they're only putting themselves at risk. When a motorist drives badly, it's treated as a minor discretion, even if it has the potential (or actually does) injure or kill somebody. That might have something to do with why people get upset.

Aaaand I've just realised that I've just posted quite a lengthy rant. Sorry about that.

Harry_J wrote:

In terms of my comment about bad cyclists being as dangerous as bad drivers perhaps you're only looking at it from one side......

Oh FFS! Are you for real? What other side is there to look at it from?! Other than, you know, the OBJECTIVE side of there being a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between the two?!

Jesus freaking Christ on a bicycle, mate ...

Do you know what 'order of magnitude' means? Is that a concept you can wrap your head around? Because that would really help you here.

Harry_J wrote:

I'm not sure i can agree that the division is in the minds of drivers i think it's on both sides but not with everyone... some cyclists and some drivers.

Education, tolerance and acceptance in all things especially sharing use of the road......

According to research from the DfT, 83% of adult cyclists are drivers also. Those 83% of adult cyclists understand what it is to drive a motor vehicle and encounter cyclists, because they experience both worlds. Think about it. Think about it again. Throw out any notion you have of there being a divide, at least from the perspective of the cyclist.

As I said, it exists in the minds of that majority of drivers who do not cycle, while only 17% of adult cyclists do not hold a licence.

Bear in mind that DfT research also reveals that over 80% of incidents involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle are not the fault of the cyclist.

Harry_J wrote:

Some very interesting observations here, I understand the concern that i may be trolling but let me say that i like a good debate and am always happy to accept a reasoned argument that differs from my own.

With that in mind, @700c I see what you are saying about my blanket observations and i may well have been unfair in making them as sweeping as I did... my only defence was that this being a cycling forum I was asking a broad question and also (incorrectly) felt that the atmosphere of conflict between cyclists and motorists would be an accepted situation.

So let me withdraw that aspect if I may, my examples were simply to highlight that it is not a one way street and perhaps to give an insight into how a motorist sees things.

I also accept that cyclists are motorists as well and no doubt see the same things time and again.

Personally i despair when I see dangerous and inconsiderate driving, there's way to much of it. I drive all over the world and find UK roads to be the worst in terms of awareness and indeed general 'niceness' the only nation i have found that are less aware than us are the Belgians!

In terms of my comment about bad cyclists being as dangerous as bad drivers perhaps you're only looking at it from one side......

A bad cyclist is far more likely to get hurt than a bad driver and even though the danger is to themselves it still has repercussions to their family, to the motorist that is involved, the healthcare, police and passers by, perhaps you took it as me suggesting that a bad cyclist might injure someone else? it's less likely that will happen but it is still possible.

A bad motorist might well hit a cyclist and that's a nightmare, but if they hit another car in traffic (i'm talking slow seeds here) then it's not a big deal - a few metal scrapes and exchange of insurance details.

Whilst i'm on that subject - insurance - if a cyclist hits a car and damages it who pays? if a cyclist hurts someone, who pays for that?

it's not a danger thing but it would be interesting to know if some of the bad cyclists might improve if they had to pay third party insurance and some sort of no claims was in jeopardy if they were involved in a collision or altercation?

Finally, I concede the point that we're talking about a few bad apples here not cyclists as a group - most are fine and the co existence with those is working well, however if i can concede that point is there a similar concession to motorists?

I will happily debate Newtonian physics with you, which law would you like to start with?

Just a few points you need to take onboard. Most adult cyclists are drivers, over 80% in fact and this is greater than the percentage of adults in the UK who are driving licence holders. So please appreciate that the division between cyclists and drivers exists largely in the heads of those many drivers who don't cycle. There is only a tiny minority of cyclists who don't drive.

I have to pull you up with regard to driving in other countries. I travel a lot for work and have driven in various countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas, as well as Europe. If you think the UK is dangerous, think again.

To put road safety in the UK into context, it has amongst the lowest killed and serious injury (KSI) statistics for its road network for any country in the world, along with countries including Norway, Sweden and Finland, all of which have far smaller populations and vehicle numbers.

The UK's KSI rate is actually lower than that of the Netherlands or Denmark, both of which are considered amongst the most cycling friendly nations on the globe. Interestingly, Belgium has around twice the death rate on its roads of the Netherlands next door. There are reasons for this and basically enforcement of speeding or drink driving laws in Belgium are lax and penalties comparatively light.

Now put the UK's KSI figures in context with other countries with similar sizes of populations, Italy and Thailand. Italy has around twice the fatality rate on its roads of the UK, Thailand has around 10 times the death rate.

A regards cyclists hitting pedestrians, the actual incidence of such events involving serious injury is slight. And in many instances these incidents are the fault of the pedestrians for listening but not looking before stepping out.

I've driven in many countries around the world and believe me, venturing onto the roads in countries like Thailand, India, South Africa, Nigeria or anywhere in the Middle East can be truly terrifying.

As for physics, the combined mass of a bicycle and its rider is only a tiny fraction of that of an average car. A bicycle travels slower and generate less turbulence than a car. What else do you need to know?

Harry_J wrote:

I'm glad to hear some cyclists have insurance - I do believe it should be mandatory - all other road users have to.

Yes, other than cyclists, horse riders & pedestrians walking on roads which have no pavements are well known for having insurance. As do small children that cycle to school. Those pedestrians make such a mess of cars when they crash into them.

Beekie