“I have no idea what he thought I had done,” said Jane Barrett. “I just went past him and then stopped at a red light. All I can think is because I was turning left, I was close to the kerb, so he couldn't get past. They like to weave around traffic, don't they?”
Barrett told the Examiner that after her manoeuvre on Huddersfield Road in Barnsley three weeks ago, the cyclist she had passed pulled alongside and started banging on the car roof.
She said he also hit the passenger window where her 15 year old daughter was sitting.
Barrett pulled into a layby and as she got out of the car, she claims the cyclist launched his bike towards her from around six feet away, denting the metal and scratching the paint.
"If I had not been holding the door, he would have trapped my leg,” she said. “He was in a proper rage, foaming. My daughter was terrified. She said she thought he was going to hit me."
At this point it seems the cyclist left and Barrett started following him.
At Old Mill Lane, he left the road to follow the route of the former canal.
Barrett said he then “popped out” at Cundy Cross, a couple of miles away, and she again followed him, losing him a little while later at Ardsley.
She reported the initial confrontation to police, and believes she has since identified the man on Strava.
She also said several people had contacted her on Facebook, complaining of similar attacks, after she posted photos taken during her pursuit.
Add new comment
47 comments
Weird & worrying that it feels, having read about another bemused motorist attacked by rabid cyclist story today, that you almost have to have a video camera now not just to record those near misses on you,but as your independent witness to prove you did nothing wrong in these style of encounters either.
Huge holes in her story. The "I have no idea what he thought I'd done" is particularly enlightening.
Does it sound credible that a cyclist would just pull up on the passenger side and start banging on the window and roof for no reason? Occam's razor.
Sounds like a dangerous driver that got what she deserved but unfortunately has not learnt her lesson.
The pulling into a layby to talk to him... most of us have probably experienced this. The driver who put you in mortal danger, oblivious to what they did, wants to give you a lecture on why it's your fault that their actions nealy killed you.
Don't forget the urgency and level of impatience that could very easily injure the vulnerable road user, but dare to criticise their superior driving ability, and they will waste much of their oh so valuable time arguing the toss.
Some of the comments are getting abit embarrasing here. I have said that some of the story seems off in my opinion, however misogynistic comments / Jokes are not needed here at all.Â
Â
Well I have a weekend off social media and I come back to this, this thread looks like a bombs hit it! A bit like Jane Barrett, this comments section makes no sense.Â
I read this as the driver tried to overtake, then pulled up while still next to the cyclist at the lights to turn left (on the basis that if the nose of the car is past they have overtaken... ignoring the 4m of vehicle behind their head). The cyclist hit the car to alert the driver to his presence.
Per case law this is legal (and any damage is the drivers liability).
Â
After that it gets far less clear, but I would expect the police to do nothing to the cyclist given the driver tried to chase them. (Cyclist claims the driver pulled in dangerously on them, then forced them off road into layby, then persued them... Without other evidence that makes any case almost impossible.)
Two things:
1. Always take a primary position in the lane approaching red traffic lights. Then no one can get passed to cut you up.
2. Don't filter down the inside, it is dangerous.Â
Â
Â
1) don't be so sure, drivers will still try to pass, and will herd you towards the kerb
2) passing stationary vehicles is rarely dangerous, as long as speed is under control to allow stopping if pedestrians are crossing between cars. I won't filter when cars are moving, however slowly. But drives will not take a position that allows filtering down the outside, so the inside is the only option. Or you have a ratcheting effect where when the queue moves cars pass cyclists, and when the queue stops cyclists musnt pass cars. So the people most affected by the congestion are cyclists, while the ones who are causing it are drivers. Does this seem right to you?
Pulling in close enough to the kerb to prevent a cyclist filtering actually makes it more difficult to turn left. The rear left wheel will go over the kerb or you need to take a very wide line or, even worse, pull out to the right while indicating left. I would suggest that this is either a poor driver or one who deliberately tried to stop a cyclist overtaking on the inside. I know how annoying this is but not a reason to damage a vehicle.
Difficult to comment otherwise without all the details. If the cyclist did collide with the car and didn't stop to exchange details then I guess the only way to get the info is to follow the cyclist. A case where a camera on the cycle would be useful in the event of a claim by the motorist, if the cyclist is in the right that is. I've used a camera since lockdown was lifted and driving standards plumetted. It's already been useful.
Looking at the state of the road on Google maps it is one of those ones that is single lane for most of it, with then a slight widening for a left turn option. It currently doesn't look wide enough for two cars AND enough room for a bike to get through so I don't think it is that which was the trigger, (and if it is the Cyclist definitely needs to take a long hard look at himself).
I once had a lady deliberately trying to block me passing her at several lights. It was more funny then annoying as she got so close to the curb a couple of times she actually curbed her wheels. It started as I filtered her at a ped crossing. I got past her and was waiting for 15 seconds for the lights to change. As they went green she must have suddenly noticed me as she lurched her car to the right and I'm sure tooted her horn. I'm assuming she was daydreaming or on her phone initially not to notice me. She passed and the next set of lights she pulled right over until he tyres brushed the curb, the lights changed before I got to her. Then the next ped lights she did the same and you could see her car catch the curb and she stalled. I was just about the filter the other way as I approached but then the traffic ahead cleared and she roared off in embarrasment.Â
The discussions on this forum are always informative, and I genuinely have learnt a lot from the very knowledgable correspondents over the months
This particular thread though has also - in very limited places - caused upset to people ( myself included ).Â
I don't think there's a rhyme or reason to why it is so, but certain words do have the power to be over-the-line offensive - yet others can just about be gotten away with. I guess a lot of it is about the baggage they carry...usually it's about historical oppression...which in turn may explain why there's perhaps this certain inequality of why it's just some words and not others. But that's just how it is.
Trying to think of the main ones.... Â Â Unacceptably Offensive (in my humble view):
B*nt  Â
B*tch   Â
C**t Â
P**i Â
P**ey  Â
N****r  Â
N***a   Â
Y** Â Â
Ch***y  Â
C**n  Â
W** Â Â
D****e
Please don't respond by playing guess what each actual word is. I love your humour but this is not one of those serves to bat backÂ
Â
Â
Â
Â
I'm struggling to understand the point of your post since perhaps only one has been used in the comments below.
Was it just an excuse for you to list all the offensive racist words you know?
Hi
I think my point was clear, please have the good grace not to try to turn it into ammunition.
thanks
Your point was off topic and smacks of someone who has something to say but can't find an appropriate forum.
Judging by number 'likes', others agree.
Maybe her account is accurate and the bloke on the bike was just a dick, there are a few of them about
It's pretty clear her account is 'economical with the truth' however, he could still be a spoke short of a full wheel.
I was expecting to see a picture of the damage to the car in the newspaper article...of course there isn't one...why would that be?Â
I'd like to know who Syrinx is who commented on the examinerlive - are they on road.cc ?
"Alternative version: Driver performs dangerously close-passing MGIF (must get in front) overtake on cyclist who bangs on car roof indicating that the car is too close. Driver gets in a rage, pulls over and has a shouty rant, cyclist (who was nearly killed just moments earlier), understandably loses it. Words exchanged. Road raging driver then pursues cyclist in 2 tonne killing machine whilst taking pictures on her blue/green mobile whilst behind the wheel of said moving vehicle. Cyclist gets off road in fear for his life taking to the canal path, but road raging driver lies in waits for him where the path comes out again (4 miles away). Cyclist finally manages to escape mad woman in killing machine. "
From the two photos in the Examiner article taken by Jane Barrett on her mobile phone (you can see it reflected in one of the photos) whilst behind the wheel of two tonnes of metal, the cyclist was in Wilier kit and the bike looked to be a vintage Wilier too (classic red and white paint job).
I very much doubt anyone would launch their pride and joy at a car from 6 feet away without having felt their life was very threatened.
Other elements of her story also don't add up - he launched bike at car from 6 feet away, yet she would have been trapped if she wasn't holding the door,
It looks more like a photo of a laptop screen to me. You see this quite a lot with cctv/dashcam footage from people not tech-savvy enough to get it onto the phone electronically. Given it looks like an old iPhone 5C, I'm thinking they're not too into their tech.
Well putđź‘Ť
A lawer would have a field day with her, playing the victim, when she endangers lifes of vulnerable groups, including her child.
Too much speculation.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/road-rage-cyclist-chased-...
Completely one sided and anti-cylist reporting from Examiner Live, having failed to question why she drove without due care and attention, into the path of the cyclist and about her views on cyclists and she gave chase, and placing her child in danger.
As by her own admissions, this driver is entiled, provocative and dangerous, and no doubt a potential killer of vulnerable groups, including children.
She drives around in her 1.5 ton battering ram with callous due regard towards cyclists and, having endangered their lives, she plays the victim card and goes on a chase, very likely to run the cyclist over, as it has been known.
In fairness, it's pretty hard to tell both sides of the story when you don't know who the other party is...
How can you say thst when one side version of story has been told and published ?
This is a case of near miss on vulnerable road user, which amounts to dangerous driving with a child on board,
Driver is NOT a fit parent, as were the Scummings family, risking the life of their child and other innocents, particularly infectious with Covid and "driving to test eyesight'
Nutter drivers like these should be banned for life.
I think she is a bit clueless as to what she did ie endangering the cyclist.
Seems very odd that you'd throw your bike at a car.
I suppose he could be a bit unhinged, in which case, he is likely to be known to police.
I can't imagine any cyclists of my acquaintance lobbing their precious bikes at even the most ignorant driver.  Excepting the cyclist being a total nutter I think there is more to this story.Â
Predictable misogyny and conclusion-jumping in the comments here. Tedious.
("They like to weave around traffic, don't they?”)
These words are typical anti-cylist views from ignorant selfish drivers, who feel entiled and believe have right of way over cyclists.
Certainly, from this female driver's admissions:
“I just went past him and then stopped at a red light. All I can think is because I was turning left, I was close to the kerb, so he couldn't get past"
She clearly cut the cyclist up in a left hook, hence his alleged reaction, having, verly likely endangered his life and is, potentially, the victim.
This is a common feature of callous dangerous drivers seeing cyclists as inconsequential and insignificant.
And, this driver in particular, fails, or chooses not to understand, why those on 2wheels have no choice but to filter, aa drivers like her blocking their paths, causing gridlocks and pollution and harming vulnerable groups, including children.
Nobody has right of way, the word you are looking for is priority. Right of way is concerned with footpaths and the like. We need to make sure we get our terminology right.
Pages