Video: Cyclist grabs tow from lorry on dual carriageway

Rick_Rude wrote:

Seems to a lot of double standards on show here. Just cycle how you want others to drive. If we all start playing the 'but I can do it safely' card, the streets will be full of motorcyclists doing wheelies, drivers handbraking and drifting around comers etc. Just because cycling is lower down the 'at this point he knew he fucked up' scale, doesn't mean we should be out there stunting.

I try to do that, but drivers insist on blowing out exhaust gases that cause a lot of respiratory illnesses. Also, I never see motorists going up on two wheels to squeeze down the inside of other traffic - can't they just follow my example?

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Also, I never see motorists going up on two wheels to squeeze down the inside of other traffic - can't they just follow my example?

Yes. Yes the can. And change a wheel while they are at it. You underestimate the driver.

Rick_Rude wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 Also, I never see motorists going up on two wheels to squeeze down the inside of other traffic - can't they just follow my example?

Yes. Yes the can. And change a wheel while they are at it. You underestimate the driver.

Impressive!

I'd like to see them attempt that on a typical UK pothole collection road.

hirsute wrote:

All well and good saying that no one got hurt in the vein of BTBS but he was rather close to the tram lines and it seemed fortuitous that he escaped. The cost would be to the police and nhs and also road closure and tram closure and other road users being affected. I don't think that sort of behaviour should be accepted, although anything beyond 'advice given' would be disproportionate.

As above.

One's personal right to be a fuckwit now and again has to be balanced with society's right not to have to pick up the pieces. Literally in this case if it goes wrong. Cyclist might be the one choosing to put themselves in immediate danger, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell the lorry driver who accidentally killed him that PTSD and the trauma of seeing a body crushed under the wheels of your truck is of no harm to anyone else.

Mungecrundle wrote:

hirsute wrote:

All well and good saying that no one got hurt in the vein of BTBS but he was rather close to the tram lines and it seemed fortuitous that he escaped. The cost would be to the police and nhs and also road closure and tram closure and other road users being affected. I don't think that sort of behaviour should be accepted, although anything beyond 'advice given' would be disproportionate.

As above. One's personal right to be a fuckwit now and again has to be balanced with society's right not to have to pick up the pieces. Literally in this case if it goes wrong. Cyclist might be the one choosing to put themselves in immediate danger, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell the lorry driver who accidentally killed him that PTSD and the trauma of seeing a body crushed under the wheels of your truck is of no harm to anyone else.

I disagree. I think society is generally better off for risk takers, for people who ride their bike. Would you view someone going through McDponalds, or picking up a wine at the supermarket, or buying crisps and coke at the local store as being a risk taker, and someone who should be denied their activity? because all those activities cost the NHS, Police, emergency services an awful lot more than all the idiots in the country on a bike.

Risk takers generally are better at managing risk. ...heavy emphasis on *generally*. And people who take more risks as teenagers generally have less harmful accidents as adults, as they learn both the limits, and how to manage risk, when they heal easier. Unfortunately a well insured society is a more costly society, a less safe society, and  a less healthy society, arguably because insurance actively discourages risk taking, and 'risky' activities.... like cycling. I bring that up because your argument regarding 'cost' is an insurance based argument. But I agree with  you that the cyclist is not only being a danger to himself, but nor is every other vehicle driver on the road. However those vehicle drivers are approximately 1000 times more likely to be involved in an accident thatkills or  injures someone other than themselves, and 400 times more likely to be involved in an accident that injures them and another, than the cyclist is.

hirsute wrote:

All well and good saying that no one got hurt in the vein of BTBS but he was rather close to the tram lines and it seemed fortuitous that he escaped. The cost would be to the police and nhs and also road closure and tram closure and other road users being affected. I don't think that sort of behaviour should be accepted, although anything beyond 'advice given' would be disproportionate.

How many people on bikes have died doing this, say in the last 50 years? How many 'fortuitous' near misses do motorists action on cyclists and pedestrians daily that are actually an assault but police go down the route of no harm no foul, thousands, if not tens of thousands every single day.

My point isn't that this is recommended, far from it, but it's that incidents like this are the type of thing that plod and the daily heil will jump on and go into a feeding frenzy. Plod will spend hours trying to track the person and then when they do make yet another series of discriminatory actions and charges, because for worse crimes they deliberately ignore, in fact they deliberately put joe public off from reporting crimes that are worse than this at all and go so far as perverting the course of justice so that they don't have to do their job/follow the law and their sworn oaths!

They wilfully ignore actions by certain segments of society that DOES make people feel fear/fear of harm, that has far more chance of actual physical harm and far higher chance of costing the tax payer a wedge of money, 

janusz0 wrote:

What I want to know is why can't Gary Faulkner hold his 'phone horizontally and avoid the nausea inducing side frames? The cyclist is best described as "cheerfully suicidal".

https://xkcd.com/2119/

ktache wrote:

Wish I had the balls...

I don't see how it could be seen as "very dangerous", bit risky perhaps, and the only real hazard is to the cyclist.  Unlike motorists who speed (deaths), use smartphones whilst driving (deaths), drink driving (deaths) and drug driving (deaths) and not just illegal drugs at that.  But unlike the "very dangerous" cyclist in this case, these motorists take out many innocents, not just themselves.

No, really, the only hazard isn't only to the cyclist (we often hear this in regard to cyclists and potential harm). If he hit those tramlines, did a faulty save, and swerved in front of a car coming the other way, on in another lane, or a cardboard box appeared out from under the truck and he catapulted out from behind the truck into the way of another vehicle that then took evasive action... Really, this is a really dangerous activity, both for the cyclist and other road users. When everyou are on the road you present a potential risk for other road users, hence we have rules etc etc. A cyclist putting themselves in harm's way isn't only putting themselves at risk. I know a lady whose life has never been the same after she ran over a cyclist in an accident that absolutely wasn't her fault. Most people driving cars have a conscience and would be devastated, often to the point of PTSD to have killed or badly harmed another human being. Don't discount it until you have seen friends or family go through the experience. And very very few of 'these motorists' have taken out themselves, or others. Less than 3% of motorists will be involved in a KSI in their lifetime.

However, I have 'had the balls' on a lot of occasions and I can report it is much easier to pedal at 35mph than to hang on. It's actually a lot of strain on your arm, and difficult to control to be towed along at 35mph on anything other than very flat or down hill. Looking at this video, I think the guy is probably on a down hill slope. Also if anything does go wrong and you're hanging on, putting the brakes on is out of the question.

nniff wrote:

The Road Traffic Act is pretty clear in this regard (spectacularly so given the convoluted prose in other parts). 

Cycling offences and cycle racing - Section 26 applies:

26 Holding or getting on to vehicle in order to be towed or carried.

(1)If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.

(2)If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.

 

So, the poor soul who got a fine for holding on last week afetr a near miss would have fallen foul of 26 (2) unless they could have asserted  successfully that their purpose was not to be drawn but to avoid being crushed by a maniac.

 

However,  there appears to be no mention of sticky bottles, so that's fine, your honour.

Yeah, so how come plod ignore it,  ignore the offence against the persons Act AND the HC so often with regards to the actions of motorists. They're shit hot at coming down on a group that does less harm to society directly than people walking on foot yet are unlawfully lenient towards those in motorvehicles and those on foot. Maybe the law isn't clear enough for them unless it's a person on a bike in which case they take the law to the nth degree, in fact even going beyond and making their own version of the law up!