Was cyclist right to take motorist to task? Sussex Police think not

All I can say is WTF is that "cyclist" on.  He would have needed to be doing closer to 40mph to have come close to a colision.  A stupid prick with a go pro looking for trouble!

Although I agree with most on here, that the cyclist had plenty of time and room, they are not taking into account that his massive, lycra covered gut was probably closer to the car than his bike

Shame the police didn't  also speak to the driver about  her driving, in particular  the imbecility of overtaking  at a pinch point, just before turning left. Sure, this doesn't  excuse the rider's  over reaction.  Equally his over reaction shoukd not excuse  her bad driving. 

He's probably one of those brainless cyclists who ignore red traffic lights because "he knows best"......

I haven't cycled down that particular road, because for my part it feels too busy. However, on occasion i do drive down it.

At that point, the road is fairly wide in terms of carriageway widths, and i can't recall off the top of my head whether the part where she overtook at the pedestrian refuge is wide enough to allow a vehicle to do so. Note, that there are one or two other pedestrian refuges in Eastbourne (where i live) that allow a cyclist to maintain a secondary position and provide sufficient overtaking clearance. 

In terms of Sussex Police talking to a driver (i.e., others have asked if the driver would have been spoken too for bad driving), i can confirm that the police do, do this. However, even when they decide to prosecute someone for bad driving, the CPS (apparently it's  the Central Ticketing Office in Worthing, who act on behalf (?) of the CPS) do absolutely sweet FA even with good video evidence. Apparently, this has 'confused' the police as well (i.e., i had a detailed chat with the Road Traffic Unit about one of my incidents where they felt the driver needed prosecuting but the CPS didn't).  Additionally, Sussex Police have spoken with drivers where i've been threatened.

At Dave E128. That should have been a prosecution not an educational letter. Whether the CPS would have done anything is a different matter though. 

Clearly he is an inexperienced cyclist if he feels that is bad enough driving for him to make such an idiot of himself.

it is always useful to be reminded that cyclists can be as stupid as anyone else.

The manouver perhaps isn't in accordance with highway code rule 167 (DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example: ... stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left) but it was hardly a particularly dangerous example. There isnt really a clear limit on how long before a junction it is ok or not ok to overtake, but I don't think that they were close enough to be a significant risk of coming into conflict... except verbal conflict from this guys' attitude!

Now wide angle lenses do make things look firther away, but this is my opinion of what a dangerous left hook looks like:
https://youtu.be/JK4-cWsK_oY

Note that I did not start an altercation with the driver or even follow them at all. Just got them sent an educational letter from the police via
http://www.operationcrackdown.org/

Given that this was Sussex Police, I'd suggest that this is what the cyclist should have done, whether or not it was actually a bit close.

Definitely looking for trouble.

Who the f**k does that prick think he is? Yes the driving was less than perfect but what a massive over-reaction - if someone knows him tell him to have a word with himself - bully!

I've got a suspicious mind - coudl it be he's taken on a false persona in the hope of making daily cyclists look bad???? hmm.

I only want to comment on the first part of this video, after he enters the car park there is social behaviour/public order discussion to be had. Prior to that is the cycling/driving question and so many people seem to be accepting that the driving was fine because he wasn't knocked off, didn't need to brake heavily or because they see much worse on a redular basis, but none of this makes her driving correct.

She overtook at a point in the road with pedestrian refuge islands, central hatching and a bus stop on the far side of the road. Then she immediatly turned left. Safety issues  on the road are mostly caused by impatience and she was driving impatiently when she overtook.

Please note I am note excusing, justifying or commenting on his actions in the car park after that

The cyclist is an absolute cock.  If that was my wife he was remenstrating with he would be speaking to the Police.  Absolute TWAT!!!  Gives all decent cyclists a bad name.  Take that bike off him and let him for a start...

Oh dear. Deliberately looking for trouble or a little bit special. 

So the Eastbourne Herald is reporting on your original report, and now you're reporting on their report of your report.

Stop it, this is very silly!

He's a cock.  Or a mentalist.  Regardless, he's a bully.

No, it's still there, but video is rather jerky. Don't know if that's just my connection, cos the audio is ok. 

The guy with the camera is a trouble-seeking dick. She was miles ahead of him when she turned in. And even after she apologises, he carries on ranting at her. 

Video appears to have been disabled on the newspaper website.

This wasn't a spoof then?  Blimey.

I don't see anything wrong with that, he had loads of space. In this case the cyclist is the dick.

I wonder if the words of advice were "Don't be such a c0ck"

whilst it might be right that the police dealt with this in an ideal world, i do wonder if they would have done anything if it was the other way round?