Cyclist accuses police of ignoring close pass video footage

vonhelmet wrote:

Have you watched the end of the video yet?

[/quote]

Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it's f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It's almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy's d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved - as you can see in the video.

Applecart wrote:

Yes. The car was too close. The cyclist was however too far out from the verge. If I was in that situation at night, I would be several inches away from being in the bushes as it's f***ing dangerous riding on narrow roads at night. It's almost an extreme sport. Cycling several feet out into the lane might make this guy's d*ck shrink a bit less from the sheer terror of it, however the effect is to make it more dangerous for all involved - as you can see in the video.

[/quote]

Have you ever cycled before Applecart?  I'm guessing not.....well certainly not in the UK where we have somewhat less than perfect roads.

Cycling a few inches away from the bushes would result in you being in the bushes more often than not.  You need to cycle around 1 to 1.5m away from the verge for several reasons.  Firstly because of pothles, secondly to avoid road furniture such as gutters etc, and finally so that you are further into the driver's field of vision.

A few of your other priceless comments "It wasn't closer than the mandatory distance" - um ok there is no specified distance, other than rule 163 of the Highway Code which says give motorcyclists, cyclists and horses at least as much room as you would give a car.  Which he never.  Also rule 163 says you should "Overtake ONLY when it is safe to do so" and by cutting in when he did it was not safe to overtake. 

"Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you" - well if they can't see a cyclist with lights and reflective gear on in the dark they shouldn't be driving.  Would you use the same line if we were discussing pedestrians?

"1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable." - please let me know how you can pre-empt a driver coming from behind you, overtaking you into the face of oncoming traffic then squeezing you onto the verge?  From the time you see the car headlights to the time the car was cutting him up was a sum total of about 5 seconds.

"2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off" - or as more often happens gives the driver the sense that you want them to overtake and as such they will try to do so before it is safe to do so.

"This means: never assume somebody has seen you, assessed your speed correctly, or will give you space as the potential cost of this is your life. If you bear that in mind you have a lot less to get angry about" - so you would recommend, as a 'cyclist' stopping on the approach to every hazard involving another car, just to be sure?

Most cyclists I know would react to a dangerous pass in some way shape or form.  It is the fight or flight response of the human body kicking in.  As for camera's creating a them and us culture, the culture was there long before camera's became popular, it's just now more and more of the incidents are being caught on film due to the number of camera's out there.

Please go and find some sensible arguments rather than the standard anti cycling rhetoric you are spouting

Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

you didn't watch to the end did you?

robertoegg wrote:

Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

 

you didn't watch to the end did you?

Yes I did. The car was close. However, it was a narrow road, there was oncoming traffic, and the cyclist was too far out from the verge. If he was riding like a reasonably intelligent person the car could slip by just fine. I've done plenty of night riding and I know it's a hairy experience, you need to be tucked right in to the edge. Unsurprisingly, I've not had any problems of this sort.

Secondly, the cyclist is clearly un utter tool. Just listen to his voice, shouting "wanker" and "tosser" at everyone with his f***ing camera on his head in the middle of the road, thinking he has all the visibility and physical properties of a motor vehicle. I think he shouldn't be riding quite frankly.

[quote=Applecart]
I hope they don't prosecute because:

1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.
I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid&nbsp;and many years before the current boom. I&nbsp;do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because&nbsp;I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me&nbsp;and will not assess my speed correctly.<br />
<br />
Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement.&nbsp;You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.<br />
<br />
Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs)&nbsp;are going to increase tension and&nbsp;screw things up for all of us.&nbsp;Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!</p>

[/quote]
What a heap of confused drivel.

1. There is no 'mandatory distance', but if there were, this would be closer than it.

2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space.

3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving.

4. "Stay safe" is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers.

5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?

[/quote] 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving.[/quote]

Agreed.............generally the closer you cycle to the kerb the more likely it is that some fcknut will see an opportunity and 'squeeze' past.

[/quote] What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no 'mandatory distance', but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. "Stay safe" is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]

Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!

I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:

1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off. It's personal, and it's what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don't do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.

Applecart wrote:

What a heap of confused drivel. 1. There is no 'mandatory distance', but if there were, this would be closer than it. 2. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please tell me what a right turning van has to do with anything. The issue was simply a standard impatient numpty pushing past with no space. 3. Your "advice" to stay very left and not double up just encourages this stupdly dangerous driving. 4. "Stay safe" is dandy, but quite what you think the cyclist could have done to avoid this idiot driving is beyond me. Other than riding in primary, which you would say is wrong because it upsets the almighty drivers. 5. Are you, in fact, L Willo returned from the grave?[/quote]

Thanks for at least bothering to state your position!

I do agree about the van, he was in the wrong. However:

1. if you remember that drivers underestimate cyclists' speed, you can pre-empt most behaviour and avoid getting killed. This is generally held to be desirable.
2. Staying left, in my experience, is appreciated by drivers as they can pass safely without the stress of thinking they're going to knock you off. It's personal, and it's what works for me. Likewise, two-abreast cycling irritates drivers enormously, so I don't do it. This is my personal opinion.
3. No idea who L Willo is. Staying safe, however falls into the above two points.[/quote]

Riding two abreast is not only legal, it's encouraged by the highway code.

Most of us cyclists do stay left, but when a section is two narrow for an overtake it's safer to "take the primary", i. e. move out, to stop a dangerous driver from passing.

Again the highway code recommends this behaviour.

Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

Hard to know where to start there's so much nonsense. So divorced from reality in fact that I doubt you are a cyclist at all. Only someone staggeringly uninformed of the reality on the ground and devoid of any sympathy would post a comment  like yours. 

My advice to you is buy, or even borrow a bike, and go out for a ride and act like a saint on the road (it's not hard; stop at red lights, be seen, be aware, say 18 inches from the kerb etc). Within the hour you'll have had a near miss and it won't have been your fault.

Edit - decided not to feed the troll. No point upsetting the applecart.

Applecart wrote:

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist.

One presumes that when you're not cycling you're basejumping, wingsuit flying and climbing skyscrapers without a harness, because you must have nerves of steel.

Or you're talking bollocks (Perhaps you drive in Harpenden?)

Applecart wrote:

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

I'm genuinely all for giving equal opportunities to the less abled, but I draw the line at blind people driving. Even Keith Peates would struggle to justify that second overtake.

kraut wrote:

Applecart wrote:

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist.

One presumes that when you're not cycling you're basejumping, wingsuit flying and climbing skyscrapers without a harness, because you must have nerves of steel.

Or you're talking bollocks (Perhaps you drive in Harpenden?)

 

Applecart wrote:

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

I'm genuinely all for giving equal opportunities to the less abled, but I draw the line at blind people driving. Even Keith Peates would struggle to justify that second overtake.

 

People have irritated me, yes. However the vast majority of the population do not have the psychological problems that result in road rage. People with road rage are a small but obviously very vocal minority. I lot of cyclists with road rage seem to have cameras strapped to their heads and spend an inordinate amount of time and energy recording themselves and others and putting it on the internet. I'm generally too busy riding my bike quite frankly.

OK I did raise my voice the other day when a young lady was chatting on her phone and missed me crossing.  I had to brake hard, but I was ready to do so as I presumed she hadn't seen me. She was clearly in the wrong, but my rule still applies: always presume that drivers haven't seen you.

The trick to being a good driver, or cyclist for that matter, is pre-empting other people's behaviour. That is the key to ah - ah - ah - ah - staying alive.

Applecart wrote:

I hope they don't prosecute because:
1. it wasn't closer than the mandatory distance.
2. it will hopefully discourage utter twats like this who go around with cameras shouting at motorists and giving all the rest of us a bad name.

I'm a lifelong keen cyclist, ever since I was a kid and many years before the current boom. I do hundreds of km per week and I have never had cause to shout at a motorist. This is because I do my damnedest to stay close to the kerb, to make myself visible, to not cycle two-abreast, to always presume that a car has not seen me and will not assess my speed correctly.

Please, get a life and ride safely. The guy should have slowed down when he saw the van turning instead of steaming through. Yes, the driver made an error of judgement. You however are a 12-stone piece of meat on a 9kg frame, versus a couple of thousand kilos of van. Regardless of what situation you are in, you are not a car and you do not have right of way due to basic physics and common sense. Back off.

Internet cycle justice warriors (CJWs) are going to increase tension and screw things up for all of us. Drivers are not out to get you. They generally can't see you and become nervous as they don't know what you are going to do, because they don't want to kill you! Grow up!

Seriously? You "do your damdest to stay close to the kerb"?

Do that and you can get knocked off.

Most days on my commute I have drivers try to squeeze past me when there's a traffic calming measure than means the road is too narrow for a bike and a car.

Not so long ago a typical incompetent tried to squeeze past, realised his idiot mistake at the last minute, and hit the kerb on the central reservation and blew his tyre and wrecked his wheel rim.

Last year another fool did the same and hit me with his wing mirror at seventy.

That hurt.

Luckily I had a witness so he got done for dangerous driving. Had the witness not been there a camera would have done the trick.

Listen : I've been knocked off my bike 5 times over the years, mostly by idiots pulling out of junctions into me, and they got zero punishment as its my word against theirs.

Too many drivers get away with threatening people's lives, and just because you've been damned lucky, doesn't mean everyone else should just roll over and accept this.

Sheesh.

fullers1979 wrote:

Simple answer to this.....they don't have time to investigate it! 

...

The police service has been so stripped of finances and resources that they have to draw the line somewhere. Whilst every victim will feel their individual circumstance is the most important thing going on unfortunately to the police it's unlikely to be the case. 

Given that the same police force had the resources to mount a highly publicised operation to crack down on pavement cycling in the well known den of dangerous cycling, Baldock and Letchworth *, the resource argument does not wash. Sorry.

It's not math, it's priorities.

*(KSIs from pavement cycling: 0. No, I'm not going to google the stats, but I'll gladly by anyone who proves me wrong a pint)

PaulBox wrote:

Strangely, if you pass one of their off-duty officers on a dual carriageway going a bit quick and he decides to report you to their traffic section, they will take the time to drop you in all kinds of sh!t with your employer's car fleet management. W@nkers... 

Simple answer is, dont be a speeding w@nker and you wont get your arse kicked.

Stumps wrote:

Simple answer is, dont be a speeding w@nker and you wont get your arse kicked.

But if there's no collision, what harm is done? /ducks

I couldn't give a toss if someone goes 80 on a dual carriage way if they keep a safe distance. I'd rather have people prosecuted for tailgating at 70, or going 35 in a 30.

unconstituted wrote:

You have to get wrecked before they'll do their job? No wonder cycling in the UK feels like the Wild West.

Useless goons.

Oh thank god. I was planning on burglarizing homes this weekend, and as long as no one gets hurt then I'll be free to enjoy a life of crime and ill gotten wealth.

Cycling on the pavement IS NOT ILLEGAL!

You may use the pavement if you do it
- out of fear of traffic
- with respect of pavement users.