London Road Rage

[SteveRuss]

Yes, it seems that is the case, despite some previous government advice to the contrary. All a bit silly though, since some of ours are impossible to circumnavigate in anything other than a toy pedal car.
.

It was obviously an awkward way of implementing a better traffic flow system to an otherwise outdated T-junction system that doesn't work so well in our more modern times of higher traffic flow, well.. on these sorts of roads at least.

I think they were actually quite sensible in implementing a rule where you were required to make an effort to play it out as a roundabout, despite it being obvious that in most situations that you have no choice but to drive over the painted circle, so that was an agreed allowance. I get that.

Unnecessarily driving in the middle of the road across one is more than taking the ****. The approach to the roundabout, by both vehicles, was made driving in the middle of the road and they continued on from there. In the Land Rover's case he then appears to sharply/aggressively cut in to the cyclists path. From then on, opinions may vary but to me, that represented the start to the event which could and should have been avoided if the motorists were driving with due care and attention whilst at least making some effort to comply with the road rules. The cyclist at that point was blameless.

One other thing, what are the rules, that presumably apply in this situation, on overtaking on roundabouts? I doubt overtaking someone in the same lane on one is allowed..

 

[flecc]

In the Land Rover's case he then appears to sharply/aggressively cut in to the cyclists path. From then on, opinions may vary but to me, that represented the start to the event which could and should have been avoided if the motorists were driving with due care and attention whilst at least making some effort to comply with the road rules. The cyclist at that point was blameless.

I fully agree, but the cyclist should have remained blameless by not reacting in the way he did. His reaction was daft, it was never going to have any result other than the one that predictably arose. As I've shown, despite the driver swerving in, his path was still completely clear to cycle on, so after that necessary slight braking he should have just cycled on.

I don't buy the notion of a cyclist correcting a driver, their points of view on road usage are usually far to different for agreement. Doing that can never bring any change in driver behaviour but does risk reinforcing any negative driver feelings about cyclists.

Overtaking in the same lane is wrong, but in London circumstances with dense traffic slowing and speeding up variably, it happens all the time. And the worst offenders in this respect are cyclists, not only overtaking in the same lane but doing it on the nearside too, which is doubly wrong.
.

 

[Fordulike]

I'm glad I'm not cycling around London if it's anything like in this video.

Breaking news:

Now a major motion picture

Starring:
Ray Winstone - Angry, fat, potty mouthed car driving twat
Benedict Cumberbatch - Angry, not so fat, slightly posher cyclist
Tom Hardy - Nosey cyclist
Tom Hiddleston - Cyclist without helmet
Andy Serkis - Ugly cyclist
Eddie Redmayne - Innocent bystander

 

[Kinninvie]

If that twat had tried that on with me he would still be in hospital.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

If I had been there, I would have knicked his car keys while he was ranting at the cyclist, then I would have ridden off with them. That would be funny.

 

[Kuorider]

If I had been there, I would have knicked his car keys while he was ranting at the cyclist, then I would have ridden off with them. That would be funny.

Problem is this could get you done for theft. Better fun to jump in,lock the door,stamp on the accelerator in neutral and hold flat out until something goes bang. Then zoom off sharpish.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Problem is this could get you done for theft.

They'd have to catch me first. How would they know who I was? Nobody would have noticed that I nicked them anyway because everybody's attention would be on the commotion.

 

[flecc]

If I had been there, I would have knicked his car keys while he was ranting at the cyclist, then I would have ridden off with them. That would be funny.

You wouldn't do it to me, my one's keyless.
.

 

[Croxden]

You wouldn't do it to me, my one's keyless.
.

I now have a mental picture of flecc going into rage, steam from his ears arms waving about.

 

[Kuorider]

They'd have to catch me first. How would they know who I was? Nobody would have noticed that I nicked them anyway because everybody's attention would be on the commotion.

You're too famous to pull that off, plod would follow the laid down rubber all the way back to Telford.

 

[flecc]

I now have a mental picture of flecc going into rage, steam from his ears arms waving about.

A vey false picture, I take everything in my stride and can't see the point of acting like that, That's why I've taken the line that I have in this thread, trying to get people to cool down and not take actions that just wind up others.
.

 

[tillson]

I wonder what the sum total of the blood pressure for all those present equals? I bet it's somewhere in the region of stroke to heart attack within five years. Everyone's a loser.

 

[shemozzle999]

The driver should have turned right after he drove off and booked himself into The Priory for some treatment

 

[SRS]

All too often these 4x4's VANs are purchased with the belief that they elevate the owners status.

They have no place on inner city roads and should be restricted to areas requiring 4 wheel drive. ie, carrying sheep on a farm.

It is my opinion that some, not all, regular nice people can be elevated to uncaring and agressive knobs once purchase is complete. Looking at this video just confirms my suspicions.

The cyclist was right to shout out. These overlarge vehicles are very threatening in their own right, never mind a driver as shown.

End of day, the cyclist was ok. Just hope that the drivers mother gets a copy of his video.

 

[flecc]

The cyclist was right to shout out. These overlarge vehicles are very threatening in their own right

That is surely irrational. Your argument means cyclists should also shout at large vans, trucks and buses, since they must be even more threatening.
.

 

[SRS]

N

That is completely irrational. Your argument means a cyclists should also shout at large vans, trucks and buses, since they must be even more threatening.
.

Not at all.
The white van man buys and drives his van to earn a living and has not generally bought it as some sort of status symbol.

Whilst they may come a bit close at times, from my experience its usually because of work and time restraints that they are rushing. It is not with the get out of my way as I am better than you attitude. How dare you momentarily slow my progress.

I'll shout at anyone if they push past with that sort of attitude. And looking at the video, he did have an attitude.

Ay nothing and the problem will remain.

 

[flecc]

The white van man buys and drives his van to earn a living and has not generally bought it as some sort of status symbol.

Whilst they may come a bit close at times, from my experience its usually because of work and time restraints that they are rushing. It is not with the get out of my way as I am better than you attitude. How dare you momentarily slow my progress.

I'll shout at anyone if they push past with that sort of attitude. And looking at the video, he did have an attitude.

Ay nothing and the problem will remain.

But this reply is just as irrational.

You don't know that man has bought his 4 x 4 as a status symbol, you don't even know if its his.

Because a van man has work and time constraints doesn't mean he can drive badly. Also you don't know if that 4 x 4 driver had work and time constraints.

You make completely unjustified assumptions about the driver's attitude while not knowing what that attitude was before he was shouted at.

And in the above you show your own very biased attitude, a clear willingness to dislike any driver of a large 4 x 4 on sight, such as referring to their cars as VANs, capitalising that word.

I agree with you that these bulky 4 x 4s are often unnecessary and I further agree that in some cases they seem to be bought as some sort of symbol. But I also know that these are often not the case. Many think these vehicles are safer in collisions than the average saloon or hatchback and some do have a genuine use for 4 wheel drive on certain occasions.

And that's the point, we can't just make assumptions about others without knowing the facts.

And I don't accept your last point about saying nothing. Drivers in general are simply not going to accept driving advice from any cyclist, particularly when being yelled at. Instead a breach of the peace is much more likely, as in this case. That achieves nothing.
.

 

[selrahc1992]

But this reply is just as irrational.

You don't know that man has bought his 4 x 4 as a status symbol, you don't even know if its his.

Because a van man has work and time constraints doesn't mean he can drive badly. Also you don't know if that 4 x 4 driver had work and time constraints.

You make completely unjustified assumptions about the driver's attitude while not knowing what that attitude was before he was shouted at.

And in the above you show your own very biased attitude, a clear willingness to dislike any driver of a large 4 x 4 on sight, such as referring to their cars as VANs, capitalising that word.

I agree with you that these bulky 4 x 4s are often unnecessary and I further agree that in some cases they seem to be bought as some sort of symbol. But I also know that these are often not the case. Many think these vehicles are safer in collisions than the average saloon or hatchback and some do have a genuine use for 4 wheel drive on certain occasions.

And that's the point, we can't just make assumptions about others without knowing the facts.

And I don't accept your last point about saying nothing. Drivers in general are simply not going to accept driving advice from any cyclist, particularly when being yelled at. Instead a breach of the peace is much more likely, as in this case. That achieves nothing.
.

but if someone deliberatlely cuts one off in a threatening and dangerous way(as this driver did to this cyclist, as evident in teh video) no assumption is necessary. If someone thereatened me in any other walk of life in such a dangerous way with such a heavy object i would feel entitled to act in self defence - if the same driver had swung a baseball bat at me, for example, i'd feel perfectly entitled to act in self defense, by shouting or hitting him

 

[flecc]

but if someone deliberatlely cuts one off in a threatening and dangerous way(as this driver did to this cyclist, as evident in teh video) no assumption is necessary. If someone thereatened me in any other walk of life in such a dangerous way with such a heavy object i would feel entitled to act in self defence - if the same driver had swung a baseball bat at me, for example, i'd feel perfectly entitled to act in self defense, by shouting or hitting him

I don't defend the driving, but the cyclist was not cut off in the way you describe, and the video shows clear evidence of that.

The driver did swing in, but the cyclist after an initial braking then pulled forward to shout at the driver, clearly showing plenty of width to do that. Then to emphasis that clear space, while the two of them were arguing, another cyclist wearing a green top rode straight through the space without slowing.

So in essence the cyclist was caused to brake as a precaution in case the driver continued to swing further in, but since the driver didn't do that, the cyclist was not cut off, he could then have just continued riding.
.

 

[SRS]

But this reply is just as irrational.

You don't know that man has bought his 4 x 4 as a status symbol, you don't even know if its his.

Because a van man has work and time constraints doesn't mean he can drive badly. Also you don't know if that 4 x 4 driver had work and time constraints.

You make completely unjustified assumptions about the driver's attitude while not knowing what that attitude was before he was shouted at.

And in the above you show your own very biased attitude, a clear willingness to dislike any driver of a large 4 x 4 on sight, such as referring to their cars as VANs, capitalising that word.

I agree with you that these bulky 4 x 4s are often unnecessary and I further agree that in some cases they seem to be bought as some sort of symbol. But I also know that these are often not the case. Many think these vehicles are safer in collisions than the average saloon or hatchback and some do have a genuine use for 4 wheel drive on certain occasions.

And that's the point, we can't just make assumptions about others without knowing the facts.

And I don't accept your last point about saying nothing. Drivers in general are simply not going to accept driving advice from any cyclist, particularly when being yelled at. Instead a breach of the peace is much more likely, as in this case. That achieves nothing.
.

Flecc

You are right, I very much dislike these large VANS. Bung some kiddie seats in them and pretend that they are some large up market car and drive around like a **at.
They clog up our small streets and from my experiences are often driven by people with inflated aggressive egos. Apologies if there owners out there that don't meet this criteria.

I've been run into the gutter on more than one occasion by many an aggressive and offensive driver of these things.

On the other hand, I have had many an apology by regular van drivers for close call/s.

In that cyclists situation, I would have shouted. I'd have probably reduced the number of F's as that did not help the situation.

Do you not think that the situation may have been different if the driver had been in a Fiat 500? I do.