Sometimes helmetcam riders get talking to drivers who’ve done stupid things and the conversation goes no further than a simple apology, albeit often followed by “mate, I didn’t see you”. But sometimes, despite being clearly in the wrong, a driver will go right off the deep end anyway, like the chap here who we’re going to call Mr Penis Head, since he says that’s his name.
It’s one of the few repeatable things he does say and you’ll want to turn down the volume if your workmates have tender ears.
In the video, the rider who goes by the YouTube handle Urbane is crossing a roundabout at what appears to be the end of Harbourne Gardens in Southampton.
As the rider approaches the first exit from the roundabout, Mr Penis Head, driving a Jaguar with stickers and logos enters the roundabout. The rider sounds his horn and after the driver stops and reverses into the roundabout a full and frank exchange of views follows, with Mr Penis Head delivering most of the frankness.
In his comments on YouTube, Urbane says: “I thought I was pretty diplomatic, considering the circumstances” and we tend to agree. Here’s how it went down in his own words:
Parental Advisory… Excessive swearing, aggressive behavior and stupid driving.
This rabid loon is called, by his own admission, Penishead Cockfacedcunt ;-0 although it said Mark on his sticker.
He is probably an inspirational figurehead and a fine representative for PowerSlideRides (logos and his name conveniently plastered all over his XJS), but I fear he may have had a tad too much high octane go-go juice in his veins, when he nearly ran me over this morning. Perhaps he had been drinking diesel instead of petrol that morning.
I hit my horn, as a warning, before the car is even on the roundabout, and (despite what he says) you can see that I am easily half way across before the car rips past, narrowly missing me on my bike.
He screeched to a halt and reversed round the roundabout (!) to confront me for having the temerity to honk my horn at him. But he soon scuttled back into his vehicle when I was not intimidated by his shiny piston shaped head and aggressive swearing.
I thought I was pretty diplomatic, considering the circumstances, if he had just said sorry everything would have been quickly forgotten. But now, I'm going to let the viewers decide…
Who do you think is being aggressive? 😉
While Mr Penis Head doesn't manage the sheer delivery speed and quantity of expletives of the previous holder of the title of Britain's Sweariest Driver, we think he makes up for it with a wider range of creative abuse. Coincidentally, or perhaps not if you believe that the car you drive says something about your personality – both of the potty mouthed protaganists drive Jags.
We should point out that although the car in this video clearly displays the name, phone numbers and website of a business that doesn't necessarily mean that the driver is associated with those phone numbers – and as the business in question has so far proved uncontactable the true identity of the driver cannot be verified – except that he goes by the name of Penis Head.

192 thoughts on “Video: “My name is Penis Head” — meet Britain’s sweariest driver”
Should this go to court, I
Should this go to court, I think the most appropriate punishment would be that he be required to permanently change his name by deed poll to that given in the video.
Strange almost the exact same
Strange almost the exact same think happened to me this morning. It seems some drivers look at a cyclist on a roundabout and doesn’t give 2 hoots to them or their safety!
I just love the way Penis
I just love the way Penis Head gets back in the car as soon as he realises the cyclist is not scared of him. Typical coward.
I get this quite often.
I get this quite often. Mostly, the drivers stare straight ahead, pretending not to have seen me, so as to provide an explanation as to why they did not bother to slow down. When one did stop, she told me to ‘Shutup!’ and drove off…
Would it be this Mark by any
Would it be this Mark by any chance?
http://www.marksdreamshack.com/
I reckon if you’re going to
I reckon if you’re going to start having a go at folk like that, you probably want to not have a URL in massive letters down the side of your car that leads to a name and address in about four clicks. Just saying.
You have a horn on your bike?
You have a horn on your bike?
JackBuxton wrote:You have a
“Airzound”
Also one of the few Youtube videos where it is used correctly, to warn a driver of the riders presence before an incident, rather than to rebuke afterwards.
I have one as well when I’m riding to commute, and have it precisely for roundabouts and certain junctions where you sometimes have to be heard if you haven’t been seen.
http://www.marksdreamshack.co
http://www.marksdreamshack.com/
wow his mobile number is on
wow his mobile number is on his site
jorysmith wrote:wow his
so it is! 07788 293198 Wonder if he’s turned it off yet? I haven’t rung it, and I wouldn’t recommend that you spam it starting at 4am
Cyclist had right of way, and entirely appropriate to sound your horn to warn other road users of your presence, with car drivers like that about. If the bike had been about a second earlier, he’d have been hit by Mr CockHead, who clearly didn’t look/care
With a car like that, he must
With a car like that, he must be endowed like a frickin donkey!
I don’t think that’s how you
I don’t think that’s how you spell “gerbil”.
What a nice fella. He has a
What a nice fella. He has a bit of a reputation does Mark judging by various forums that his name appears on (not all of which are positive towards him). Amusingly one of his own posts say he is “uncommunicative”. Apparently it should have said “f*****g uncommunicative”.
http://www.marksdreamshack.co
http://www.marksdreamshack.com/index.htm
His website.
Its amazing how some people
Its amazing how some people even consider trying to defend whats clearly indefensible. Hes approached that RA with no consideration for what may be on it or approaching it, yet he trys to defend his driving…… Hopefully one day he wraps himself and his car around a tree somewhere remote.
His ‘business’ seems to have
His ‘business’ seems to have some influential supporters – I’m sure they’ll be very supportive when they see the vid :))
Increasingly, drivers like
Increasingly, drivers like this make me want to keep a bidon filled with stale, week-old p!ss attached to my bike for emergency purposes…
Yennings wrote:Increasingly,
Brake Fluid is another option 👿
He’s a business man?
STOP
He’s a business man?
STOP PRESS, LIMITED OFFER, A TWO THOUSAND POUND REDUCTION ON THE FULL PRICE OF £6995, these are now available for a limited period at the price of £5995
6-2=5
5+2=6
~X( Nope still missing something! :/
… Although I just read his
… Although I just read his site in more detail and see that his company specialises in building off-road buggies for the disabled. How can someone doing such a ‘good’ job also be so angry?!
Yennings wrote:… Although I
Unfortunately some people running charities are not doing it for the right reason, and its not just the small ones, I have had the first hand displeasure
jason.timothy.jones
Ah, the Jeffrey Archer hypothesis…
https://www.facebook.com/page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dreamshack-Custom-Sandrails/393242444127398
This is his facebook page, yet to look for twitter.
Idiot driving, especially in a car with company stickers.
sunnythemurray
Here it is https://twitter.com/MarkDreamshack
Recognise this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=892725570744442&set=a.357450110938660.112007.100000210233401&type=1&theater
srchar wrote:sunnythemurray
Here it is https://twitter.com/MarkDreamshack
Recognise this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=892725570744442&set=a.357450110938660.112007.100000210233401&type=1&theater— sunnythemurray
This google link shows a few returned search items of interest. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=facebook+karen+dreamshack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=y8mhU9aaE47Y8gf014DYDQ
Initially the Facebook related links showed a link to someone else’s profile in which pictures of him, clearly the same person as in the video, were shown. It seems likely from those pictures that he’s a nice family guy. Seems sad though that the person in the video doesn’t seem to hold other people’s loved ones in very high regard, at least not whilst he is driving his car 🙁 Its also telling that neither the linkedIn nor Facebook pages are accessible any more. Perhaps the owner of these accounts has decided to prefer not to be publicly associated with him. Hopefully someone somewhere is giving him their opinion on how stupid his actions were, even if the law itself doesn’t follow up.
His facebook page for his
His facebook page for his Princes Trust supported ‘charity’ is down – very wise in the circumstances, he wouldn’t want them to get wind of what sort of a moron they are working with.
Just wrote a comment on his
Just wrote a comment on his FB page shaming him for his behaviour. I suggest others do the same.
The driver committed at least
The driver committed at least two offences, cutting in front of another road user on a roundabout when he was supposed to give way to the rider already on the roundabout and reversing back over the roundabout and potentially into oncoming traffic. I’m not sure how many penalty points on the driver’s licence the offences would equate to, but I’m guessing at six with three for each of those two offences. Perhaps Stumpy could advise on that. From the video it looks as if the car was moving fast over the roundabout too, but I expect there’s little chance of judging accurately and determining if the vehicle was breaking the speed limit.
I’m curious what the police will think of the video. Speed is of the essence with supplying it to the cops otherwise they won’t take note. This is without taking his aggressive behaviour into account. Perhaps the Cycling Silk could provide some advice.
OldRidgeback wrote:I’m
I’ll wager they won’t do a damn thing, citing lack of independent witnesses, blah, blah.
But in getting away with this, as he almost certainly will, the next cyclist who even gets near to being in his way (which he has obviously bought and paid for) may suffer a far more tragic consequence.
How many times do I have to say there should be a “Cyclists Vigilante Force” set up to extract vengeance on such as this excuse for a human being.
Quite shocking behaviour from
Quite shocking behaviour from an angry man with a big car.
It’s somewhat interesting that his ‘charity’ isn’t registered with the charities commission, nor do their seem to be any related financial documents available. Can’t help but question if the Charity staff and volunteers have undergone the required CRB checks to work with vulnerable youngsters.
I hope that the videographer has passed this along to the police.
Hiya,
I’ve been emailed from
Hiya,
I’ve been emailed from someone called Andy with a link to this site and video as my company is linked on the Dreamshack site and I’ve met Mark a couple of times a few years ago.
I tried to reply to the email but it was a false address so i’d just like to post my reply to it here…..
_____________________
Hi Andy,
Thanks for the heads up on this, I’ve looked at the video and it looks pretty damming however i don’t recognise the driver.
I’ve not seen Mark in about 3 years but I don’t think that’s him in the video – I could be wrong as you never get a proper view of him.
Not great driving or reaction in my view from the driver whoever it is.
_____________________
As per my reply i’m not 100% sure it is the guy from Dreamshack so whilst it’s a bad encounter and the driver is clearly in the wrong it might be worth double checking the true identity of the driver. It would be silly of someone to behave like that with their name all over the car which to me suggests it may not be the owner himself driving?
‘ I could be wrong as you
‘ I could be wrong as you never get a proper view of him.’
hmm. And yet the still at the top of this article has managed exactly that.
It’s the old Chris Huhne defence…
andyp wrote:’ I could be
Good point, on the photo, to be honest it doesn’t look like him.
Mark has hair – or at least he did when i last saw him back in 2011.
Harry_J wrote:
Mark has hair
If not, I suspect he’s going to try and grow some pretty quickly now.
Oh, he’s taken down all the
Oh, he’s taken down all the details on his website so you’ll have to find it archived on some other website. Eg http://www.hampshiregateway.info/en/Powerslide_Rides
Whois reckons he’s not called
Whois reckons he’s not called Mr Penis Head at all.
I imagine Mark is drumming up
I imagine Mark is drumming up business by trying to create as many disabled people as possible via his driving skills.
Although apparently his other
Although apparently his other half maintains (or maintained, seems to have gone) a Facebook page on his behalf called “The Bald Engineer” 😕
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karen-dr
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karen-dreamshack/85/6ab/b25
Personal Assistant
Dreamshack Custom Sandrails X-bugs Powerslide Rides
I run a fan page on Facebook to Mark Dreamshack called The Bald Engineer as well as keeping up to date the sensible Facebook page Dreamshack Custom Sandrails.
I do whatever Mark makes me! I am the official workshop slave….
And on the Facebook page
And on the Facebook page linked in srchar’s reply, there is both the car and a guy in a cap that looks amazingly similar to our Mr PH.
I think the phrase is “it’s a fair cop guv!”
It looks like someone has
It looks like someone has been busy all afternoon erasing themselves from the Internet. Good luck with that…
Company accounts appear to be
Company accounts appear to be six months overdue as well :B
(Too stalkery?)
Unfortunately for him even 10
Unfortunately for him even 10 seconds spent digging into companies house data turns up enough info to find relevant addresses… and if that’s not him in the video then his doppelganger has been seeing rather a lot of his girlfriend / wife judging by the number of times he’s in her photos and videos.
In other news he’s apparently building an “urban assault car” so I guess his driving in the Jag is just part of his training for driving that.
He’s the sort that needs to lose his license for a good 3 to 5 years until he can get in a car without losing his cool and putting others at risk in the process.
The bald ones with big red
The bald ones with big red cars are always the worst. 😉
MercuryOne wrote:The bald
Oi! I resent that! 😀
Now, Mr Penis Head, that’s a
Now, Mr Penis Head, that’s a name no one would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Mr Penis Head that didn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Like his driving to start off with.
I really hope this twat gets his comeuppance. Perhaps next time he’s about to join a round about he’ll fail to see an HGV bearing down on him.
Has this actually been
Has this actually been reported to the police?
‘Now, Mr Penis Head, that’s a
‘Now, Mr Penis Head, that’s a name no one would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Mr Penis Head that didn’t make a whole lot of sense. ‘
* applause *
andyp wrote:’Now, Mr Penis
There’s a labowski quote for just about any situation 🙂
Sad to say, people like him
Sad to say, people like him are NOT that rare. I probably encounter this kind of behaviour 3 or 4 times a year, maybe more often.
And I’ll get flamed; people will come on here and say I need to look at how I ride, that maybe I cause that behaviour. To be clear, the car cut across the cyclist, dangerously.
This happens to me frequently.
Maybe the driver didn’t set out to deliberately cut across the cyclist, maybe the driver “just didn’t see him”. But his reaction was very typical; blaming someone else for his screw up, and reversing aggressively and stupidly to confront the cyclist when the driver is totally in the wrong.
The driver should be locked up and banned from driving for a very long time, he has no understanding of how to drive.
We wouldn’t need separate infrastructure if all drivers (and not just ignorant self-important dicks like him) behaved with respect to other road users (not just folk on bikes) and were aware of the consequences of their actions.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:Sad to
Totally agree, it’s the reason why motorist are responsible for thousands of deaths and serious injuries every year. and because these sudden and violent deaths are caused by the sacred cow that is the car the public in general to turn a blind eye to it all.
If it was a form of cancer that was resulting in the sudden and violent deaths of thousand of other wise heathy people you would be able to move for fun runs trying to find a cure. but seeing as it cars and car driver that are doing it we’ll all turn a blind eye and hope it doesn’t happen to us.
What a delightful chap!!!!!!!
What a delightful chap!!!!!!! NOT
Very apt name tho………..
It would be a real shame if
It would be a real shame if someone set up a new Facebook profile for Mark and uploaded the video to the profile.
Just get it reported to the
Just get it reported to the police. As a verbal assault and public order offence.
Wow you guys are serious
Wow you guys are serious sleuths… much better than i would be!
Well, the Mark i met had hair, he didn’t look much like the guy in the video and the behaviour seems at odds with what I’ve heard but that’s just my take, you’re investigating the true identity and I’m glad about that – the important thing is that you don’t vilify someone who is innocent.
However, the actual reason i registered and posted was to respond to the mail i received so as not to appear to ignore it which would have been rude.
Now, at the risk of really annoying everyone I’d like to ask a question regarding cyclists relationships to motorists as a completely separate topic.
I used to ride – motorbike and pushbikes but now I drive so i have experienced all sides.
Why the blanket animosity?
I’ve seen some seriously bad driving by motorists and also some seriously bad riding.
I’ve even had a conversation with someone who rode off the pavement straight into my path – I stopped in time ( i was doing 20mph luckily) but then got 5 mins of abuse in a similar vein to the video above – the parting shot was – i’m videoing this you’ll be sorry.
I just wanted him to look before he killed himself (talking as an ex rider).
The more I drive in and around London the more I see dangerous riders abusing car drivers just for being there, cars barely crawl in town so cycling makes more sense but with some of these riders i’d be scared of being run down on my bike by another cyclist!
It seems to me that when we are in control of a vehicle we only see the other vehicle and not the person in control so we are dehumanised……. how do car drivers and cyclists coexist?
Quote:The more I drive in and
I drive and cycle and I don’t agree with you at all. I’m not in favour of bad cycling, but I don’t think the blame is anywhere near 50-50.
Cars go much faster and are many times heavier, so they do masses more damage. Many drivers are considerate, but far too many put cyclists in danger because they don’t understand how they should drive, or are too impatient to wait until its safe to overtake (or, in this case, to wait for the cyclist to go round the roundabout). There is too much impatience, and too much of a get-out-of-my-way attitude.
I have never ever been scared of being run down by other cyclists, but maybe conditions are different where you are.
You’re probably right about the incident you describe being the other guy’s fault, although of course we won’t hear his side of the story.
Official figures show that in
Official figures show that in collisions between cyclists and motorists, the motorist was solely to blame in 75% of cases. When cyclists are injured, only 2% of cases are caused by ‘bad’ riding (wearing dark clothes at night, not having lights, jumping red lights, etc).
I drive, I ride a scooter, and I cycle. Even taking into account that there are more cars on the road, the amount of terrible drivers I see every day is terrifying.
Drivers holding their phones to their ears. Drivers jumping red lights. Drivers pulling out of parking spots suddenly without indicating or checking if it’s clear. Drivers parking on double yellows with their hazard lights on whilst they ‘just pop in’ somewhere, blocking visibility on junctions. Drivers speeding. Drivers honking their horns and tailgating people for doing the speed limit. Drivers passing cyclists far too closely. Drivers honking other drivers for not overtaking cyclists (or tractors, or horses), even though it would be dangerous to do so. Drivers not giving way at traffic calming measures. Drivers not giving way at junctions. I see this whether I’m riding, driving or walking, every single day.
On the other hand, I saw a cyclist jump a red light two years ago. I’ll occasionally see a cyclist out at night without lights, and think ‘dick’, but it’s pretty rare. I do see a lot of cyclists on the pavement, but where I live has a lot of random ‘bike paths’ that are just a line painted down a pavement, so a good chunk of that is understandable.
It’s also utterly baffling given that cyclists don’t need a license to be on the road, and motorcyclists can ride around on a 125cc bike that can do 60mph on a CBT – you’d think that given that the driving test is supposed to be so thorough that motorists would, on average, be better on the road, not far, far worse.
Or maybe it’s not that baffling – as other people have mentioned, when you’re on two wheels, whether pedal or engine powered, you’re a lot more vulnerable than if you’re in your safe metal box with crumple zones, seatbelts and airbags. Because driving is seen as a natural right of passage into adulthood, people start taking it for granted and seem to forget that they’re in control of large, powerful machinery where one moment’s inattention can easily kill someone.
For example, once I was riding home on my bike (of the pedal variety). There was a set of lights. They were on green. I approached and starting riding through the lights, only for a guy in a Mini coming from the opposite direction try to turn right across me, even though I had right of way. I slammed my brakes on, he did as well… then he looked at me, and shook his head. I’m not entirely sure what was going through his head – but the point is that he probably wouldn’t have done that if I’d been making the same journey in my Vectra.
If he’d hit me on my bike or scooter, I would have had grazes and bruises at the very least, and possibly a knackered bike. He’d probably drive off before I could take his details, and my report to the police would probably be met with polite indifference and a shrug.
If he’d hit me in my car, there would probably be no injuries on either side, and some scrunched car bodywork on both that his insurance would have to pay out for.
TL;DR – In the majority of cases, cyclists aren’t to blame for accidents, motorists are. When a cyclists rides badly, generally they’re only putting themselves at risk. When a motorist drives badly, it’s treated as a minor discretion, even if it has the potential (or actually does) injure or kill somebody. That might have something to do with why people get upset.
Aaaand I’ve just realised that I’ve just posted quite a lengthy rant. Sorry about that.
Bad cyclists are a nuisance
Bad cyclists are a nuisance and there are a fair few of them but generally they tend to risk only their own neck.
However, bad motorists kill and maim other people. One is too many.
andybwhite wrote:Bad cyclists
That’s an interesting point but it doesn’t answer the main question.
What i’m trying to say is that motorists and cyclists are a fact of road life.
Scoring points, however logical is a battle that takes more energy to fight than will ever be recovered surely life is too short to have that attitude?
I disagree by the way, bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers…… imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?
I don’t think i can subscribe to the ‘it’s ok to be a bad cyclist because you’ll only kill yourself’ that’s not an excuse…
I don’t want to hit a cyclist, or anyone… it’s a horrific thing to happen
Harry_J wrote:I disagree by
That’s a hypothetical situation that *may* possibly happen. I doubt it’s more common than one in ten thousand, and the driver is likely to prang another metal box with only property damage.
In other words, this is a red herring, and not a valid counterpoint in the argument. Not having a go, you just haven’t thought this through.
In nearly all accidents, the party bringing the most kinetic energy causes lots of damage and sustains little.
Basically, crap cyclists are annoying, and at most a (slight) danger to other cyclists or pedestrians. Drivers kill quite a number of pedestrians ON PAVEMENTS each year. Pretty clear where the danger lies.
Yes, it is. Being hit is worse.
jacknorell wrote:Harry_J
That’s a hypothetical situation that *may* possibly happen. I doubt it’s more common than one in ten thousand, and the driver is likely to prang another metal box with only property damage.
In other words, this is a red herring, and not a valid counterpoint in the argument. Not having a go, you just haven’t thought this through.
In nearly all accidents, the party bringing the most kinetic energy causes lots of damage and sustains little.
Basically, crap cyclists are annoying, and at most a (slight) danger to other cyclists or pedestrians. Drivers kill quite a number of pedestrians ON PAVEMENTS each year. Pretty clear where the danger lies.
Yes, it is. Being hit is worse.— Harry_J
Yes being hit is worse and i would not wish that on anyone.
I’ve already said numerous times that i’m not saying the situation we currently face is ok, i don’t like it either.
but it is all we’ve got isn’t it… what are you actually doing about safeguarding yourselves? fighting against compulsory helmets, crowing when a german throws out contributory negligence when a cyclist is injured without one?
To me that’s nuts….. cycling is dangerous… that’s just the way it is, to clarify… it’s not right but that’s all we’ve got so we have to make the best of it.
You can get on your high horse (or saddle) and be right if you want but if you don’t ride assuming that you’ll have an accident without eyes in the back of your head you will be right and injured and I don’t like that idea at all.
Harry_J wrote:To me that’s
No, cycling isn’t dangerous. Most drivers aren’t either.
However, impatient, reckless, or hostile drivers are dangerous and are the ones doing the killing and maiming.
We need to address what’s killing people, not blaming the victim. In aviation, we fix the underlying problems, we don’t blame the passengers for dying when a plane goes down, saying: “You shouldn’t have flown”.
Cycling is, in fact, immensely safe. In many countries it’s massively safer, in large part because society has decided that drivers need to be policed and face consequences if necessary.
As a cyclist (and, btw, IAM driver and motorcyclist), I am riding defensively. That is all I can do to ‘keep myself safe’. I can’t change others’ behaviour, which may end up killing me because a driver takes a, for them, ‘acceptable chance’ with their vehicle.
If you think I should be held responsible for someone else’s actions, I would have some very strong words for you.
jacknorell wrote:Harry_J
I can’t help myself…
Ok i will bite.
IAM teaches more than just defensive driving/riding, it adds common sense to the mix, risk assessment, not just of the road conditions but of your own situation, i’m sure you know that.
The simple fact that you say something needs to change, and that you can’t change others behaviour means you know that the risks are real.
I’m not holding you responsible….I’ve lost count of the number of times in this discussion i’ve said it isn’t right but it’s all we have….
I’m simply trying to say that the reality of the situation is that you may well be in the right, but you will be the injured one whether you are right or wrong.
Those are the risks you accept every day you ride…
I reiterate it’s not right, it’s just the way things are… you can’t change it by blaming and shouting at people or even saying strong words to me. I didn’t make the situation i’m just trying to show it for what it is;
You hit me in my car, you’re in the wrong, you get hurt.
I hit you in my car, i’m in the wrong, you get hurt.
It’s not fair is it…. all i’m saying is being right doesn’t armour you like iron man. Don’t shoot the messenger, especially when he’s meant to be working.
Harry_J wrote:andybwhite
Imagine reading the highway code, you know, the bit where it talks about giving cyclists room because they may have to make sudden manoeuvres? Or have advanced motorists advanced beyond such trivia?
Harry_J wrote:Hiya,
I’ve
Seems legit. I’m sure that there are lots of people who would think it perfectly reasonable to set up a false email account to anonymously warn a total stranger that his company is linked on this clown’s website. Doesn’t seem at all far fetched.
Would you care to explain how this would be possible? If the driver was driving in a lawful manner, he would be behind the swerving cyclist. The driver would not need to alter his course at all. Unless, of course, the driver is overtaking, in which case he would be giving the cyclist same amount of room as if he were passing a car, and again the driver would not need to alter his course. He would have left ample room for a cyclist to swerve.
The only way the car would need to be taking evasive action would be if the driver was driving in an unsafe manner. Would that be the rider’s fault?
Do you think he introduces
Do you think he introduces himself like this to the children he works with?
Yeah, there are bad cyclist
Yeah, there are bad cyclist and just like all motorist you have your little anicdotal story of some bad cycling to help justify the on going bad treatment on more vulnerable road users, be they cyclists or pedestrians.
Yes cyclist get stuff wrong, but that very very rarely results in somebody (even the cyclist) being killed. the difference is that when motorist get something wrong people are killed by the thousand every year. Given the motorist likely hood of killing somebody with there deadly weapon is it unfair that they should be held to a much higher stand ?
Housecathst wrote:Yeah, there
There’s no need to be patronising, i’m simply trying to get to the bottom of this..’little anecdotal stories’ and ‘more vulnerable road users’ suggests that it’s a one way thing, i’m saying it works both ways and it really shouldn’t.
Personally I am wary of cyclists, bikers, kids, dogs or other cars – they are all unpredictable. I’m not saying one is good and one is bad i’m just saying why try and score points when the only one keeping score is you?
“I disagree by the way, bad
“I disagree by the way, bad cyclists are just as dangerous as bad drivers…… imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?”
“Imagine” being the operative word! give me an example of just this type of accident please, I’m sure the daily mail web site will be full of them if they every happen in any kind of significant number.
Motorist were responsible for in the region 2500 deaths and serious injury on the roads last year, cyclist a fraction of the number.
We keep score as you put it
We keep score as you put it because people are being killed by motorists on a daily basics. Perhaps if you had a near death experience a couple of times a week at the hands of another motorist who looks you in the eye pulls out in front of you anyway you would be keeping score too.
Housecathst wrote:We keep
Honestly?
If i was having a near death experience twice a week because of something i chose to do, I’d have to say i’d try not to do it…. or at least change what i am doing…
You know Einstein’s definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
As i said above, it’s not deliberate it’s a simple (and sad) fact of going out on the roads….it’s why i stopped riding, i felt it was too dangerous – i got hit by a bike on my bike because he went through a red light – no insurance no apology just rode off…. i got picked up by two other cyclists who moaned about the other one….. the sad fact is that human beings come in all forms good and bad…. this is not cyclists v motorists it’s bad people making life harder for the good ones and the sooner this civil war ends the sooner you will realise you’re fighting the wrong enemy.
Harry_J wrote:
You know
Do you know my version of insanity?
Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. – Benjamin Netanyahu – May 2012.
farrell wrote:Harry_J
Do you know my version of insanity?
Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. – Benjamin Netanyahu – May 2012.— Harry_J
Very good your subtlety is noted…… but leave the Israeli’s alone they’re not trying to run you over….
ok so maybe not Einstein, Ben Franklin or Mark Twain perhaps?
It’s unattributed officially but Einstein is the popular choice so i chose him for ease. The repeating of a dangerous act was the point not the grey haired relativitist.
farrell wrote:Harry_J
Do you know my version of insanity?
Using made up quotes and attributing them incorrectly to famous people in order to appear more intelligent. – Benjamin Netanyahu – May 2012.— Harry_J
Yep, it’s attribution to Einstein is a popular fabrication. The other common Einstein quote concerning God and Dice is heavily paraphrased.
The expression most probably originated as a popular truism repeated within addiction groups such as the AA, and can’t be attributed to any individual famous or otherwise.
The story isn’t important –
The story isn’t important – it’s just an illustration and you’re right, a one sided story doesn’t hold any sway at all.
To get the truth you need to see both perspectives, there are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists, they all cause accidents, angst and trauma.
BUT…. there will always be cyclists, there will always be motorists, dogs, kids, bikers etc. They exist on the road. As a biker i was taught to ride defensively and assume the car had not seen me or would do something silly, not because they do it on purpose but because humans are fallible and prone to error… if they weren’t there would not be any accidents at all and we would not be having this conversation.
So, my point is, once again, why not learn to co exist with motorists? you will not change the fact they are human so why try?
you’ve no doubt learnt how to ride defensively, you no doubt can drive – please tell me you’ve never made a mistake in either and I will shut up.
Please don’t assume motorists are out to get you or that they don’t care. Understand that behind the wheel there is a fallible human being just like there is on the your saddle holding the handlebars.
You are more vulnerable cycling but you choose to go out on the road in that state and must therefore ride to those conditions and we as motorists must cope with that too….. we don’t want to hit you.
Accidents are not caused, or
Accidents are not caused, or indeed very rarely happen, collisions are caused, crashes are caused. Most, if not all, are avoidable, therefore NOT accidents.
Funny really, I have driven &
Funny really, I have driven & cycled around London for the last 20 years and had no accidents in a car but have been knocked off my bike 3 times by cars over the same period. So please Harry (or Mark), don’t argue I ride my bike more recklessly than I drive my car or else I’ll be obliged to conclude you really are the car driver in the video
arfa wrote:Funny really, I
That’s a little sensitive isn’t it?
I am not Mark, or the guy in the video…I’m sure the owner of the site will be able to establish my location via ip address.
However lets not let a baseless accusation get in the way of a reasoned discussion shall we… Distraction techniques are a little petty no?
Arfa (nice cockney phonetics by the way, A is for ‘orses perhaps? :D) You appear to have missed the whole point of what i took time to think about, construct and then share with you – your response is a threat…. how is that helpful or indeed different from the attitude you are complaining about?
Come on , i’ve taken time out of my evening watching Spain get humiliated to discuss this with you, surely there’s more in your locker?
So in the context of this
So in the context of this story and the YouTube video above you think the cyclist should have just shrugged his shoulders and ridden off without a care in the world and the bullying thug in the xjs shouldn’t have been held to account in anyway.
I’d like to live in a better world where people aren’t killed by cars every single day of the week. The ‘shit happens, get over it” argument might be fine when your sat in you ton of metal box going about your daily business but as a cyclist I expect and hope for better.
Housecathst wrote:So in the
In the context of the story above the car driver was in the wrong in every way possible… no argument about that…..
The cyclist didn’t start or provoke it… i’m not talking about that, it’s not a case i would defend.
I’d like to live in that world too, but we don’t do we….
I’m not saying shit happens i’m saying cycling is dangerous, you’re vulnerable and you accept it…. you know the risks and you choose to do it….
Driving is also dangerous, I’m just as vulnerable in my car to an 18wheeler pulling across me on a motorway but i accept the risk and drive accordingly.
I choose not to cycle because the risk is more than i am happy to accept.
I’m not saying don’t ride, i’m saying ride safely and accept that you’re not in full control of your destiny.
Can you tell me that’s not the case?
@Harry_J
Well the roads are
@Harry_J
Well the roads are certainly a lot more dangerous with a tosser such as you driving on them. I hope you are prosecuted, your license taken away and your awful car crushed. A spell in prison would do you good or picking up litter the length of the central reservation of the M1 for 2 years.
Airzound wrote:@Harry_J
Well
And what crime have i actually committed?
Discussing an issue with you?
Or are you throwing baseless accusations around?
I think it would be better if you stick to the facts rather than calculating a million from 2+2
I see no value in swearing or threatening someone you don’t know or wishing harm to them…..
In honesty you’re exhibiting the traits from the guy in the video far more than I am but i am not accusing you of being him am I?
Twat. So no-one has any
Twat. So no-one has any responsibilty then?. That’s the way it is, take it or leave it.
If your’e “just as vulnerable in my car” as a bike why are you even on the road then? Moron.
Everyone else’s fault.
climber wrote:Twat. So no-one
Oh please can’t you even post a response without swearing at me?
If you disagree that’s fine but if you swear or lose your temper yo’ve lost the argument.
Please don’t quote a snippet of my text and put your own context into it, once again scoring points in a battle noone is keeping track of…..
is that 20 – nil to you? well done my son 😉
“You know Einstein’s
“You know Einstein’s definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
I love cycling and think its worth the risk vs the rewards it gives.
Housecathst wrote:”You know
Good i’m glad…..I hope you stay safe.
@Harry_J
Forget your prior
@Harry_J
Forget your prior experiences of Mark/MrPH, and put aside the matter of whether or not it is him in the video.
Based on the driving and the behaviour of the driver in the video, what response do you believe it deserves from the Police/CPS?
bikebot wrote:@Harry_J
Forget
A fair question, so, considering I’m not a lawyer or a cop….
By the look of it he didn’t give way to traffic….. because he
a. didn’t see it
b. saw it and didn’t care
c. saw it and judged it
by his reaction i would suggest it was ‘a.’ so whilst dangerous it’s not a crime (i think?)
his reaction afterwards was over the top but there were no blows and the verbal assault was both ways… he was in the wrong but i’m not sure if an actual crime was committed? – I don’t know for sure.
I’m guessing it’s based on fear and adrenaline… we’ve all seen it – doesn’t make it right but you can see where it came from.
The thing i don’t get is the reversing – i’ve no clue about the legalities of that manoeuvre so perhaps that’s where the law may get involved?
Overall i can’t see the police being interested, it’s wrong as there should be a yellow card system so it’s logged but sadly there’s stuff like this going on al the time.
That’s just based on a dispassionate view….i’ve already said above i would not want to defend this and that he was in the wrong… it was a lucky escape for the cyclist and i’m glad it was just a verbal clash in the end.
Harry_J wrote:A fair
Thanks for replying.
The Police could have quite a lot of things to pick up on. The overall question is whether they, and the CPS would consider that careless driving or dangerous driving.
For your first point, about whether the driver saw the cyclist, he of course should have done. Failing to observe, can on it’s own constitute careless driving. If he didn’t care, that would be dangerous driving.
The cyclists saw the driver, if you check the video carefully, he first sounds his air-horn whilst the driver was still two car lengths behind the give way line. The driver didn’t need to see, if he was at the correct speed he would have heard. The question to consider, is whether a traffic officer would stop a vehicle if it saw them negotiate the junction in such a way, and even without the cyclist the driver would have been stopped for failing to slow sufficiently.
The matter which is of most concern to the readers here, is the drivers attitude. The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, and actually are very forgiving of driving errors. It’s part of the ethos of “defensive cycling”, you accept that everyone makes mistakes, and so you aren’t just observing the traffic, you are thinking about whether the driver has seen you, positioning yourself to be visible and sometimes to assert control.
I had a minor incident yesterday, something that will sometimes happen. I driver who hadn’t seen me pulled out of a sideroad. I had already seen that he’d missed me so I was slowing, he then saw me on the second look, braked, and the hand come off the wheel to say sorry. All forgiven, no complaints, I know that driver will have learnt something and will improve, and I know that because he apologised straight away.
Drivers that don’t do that, make driving errors and then defend them are an absolute danger to everyone. The laws are already there to deal with them, my hope is that the Police and the CPS focus more on this small number of seriously dangerous driver who represent a disproportionately large risk to cyclists.
bikebot wrote:Harry_J wrote:A
Thanks for replying.
The Police could have quite a lot of things to pick up on. The overall question is whether they, and the CPS would consider that careless driving or dangerous driving.
For your first point, about whether the driver saw the cyclist, he of course should have done. Failing to observe, can on it’s own constitute careless driving. If he didn’t care, that would be dangerous driving.
The cyclists saw the driver, if you check the video carefully, he first sounds his air-horn whilst the driver was still two car lengths behind the give way line. The driver didn’t need to see, if he was at the correct speed he would have heard. The question to consider, is whether a traffic officer would stop a vehicle if it saw them negotiate the junction in such a way, and even without the cyclist the driver would have been stopped for failing to slow sufficiently.
The matter which is of most concern to the readers here, is the drivers attitude. The vast majority of cyclists are also drivers, and actually are very forgiving of driving errors. It’s part of the ethos of “defensive cycling”, you accept that everyone makes mistakes, and so you aren’t just observing the traffic, you are thinking about whether the driver has seen you, positioning yourself to be visible and sometimes to assert control.
I had a minor incident yesterday, something that will sometimes happen. I driver who hadn’t seen me pulled out of a sideroad. I had already seen that he’d missed me so I was slowing, he then saw me on the second look, braked, and the hand come off the wheel to say sorry. All forgiven, no complaints, I know that driver will have learnt something and will improve, and I know that because he apologised straight away.
Drivers that don’t do that, make driving errors and then defend them are an absolute danger to everyone. The laws are already there to deal with them, my hope is that the Police and the CPS focus more on this small number of seriously dangerous driver who represent a disproportionately large risk to cyclists.— Harry_J
No argument from me on those points at all, we have an accord.
Have a good night.
Bit of handbags, but it’s
Bit of handbags, but it’s always amusing to see the most poor excuse for a male human getting out of a big car.
Grow up son, that car won’t make you a man.
As bikebot says, back to the
As bikebot says, back to the incident in question. I defy anyone to tell me that someone with these levels of anger issues should be behind the wheel of a car. What gets people into this sort of state, drink? drugs? roidrage?
I hope this footage gets
I hope this footage gets viewed by the police and this idiot gets prosecuted as he is a danger to all road users and a foul mouthed aggressive menace. He will definitely injure or kill some one some day driving like that if he hasn’t already. He needs to be banned and fined and his awful car crushed. This should make him reflect on what a bad driver and human being he is.
Anyway chaps it’s been an
Anyway chaps it’s been an interesting discussion, I’ve got work to do ahead of meetings in the morning and this along with the football is not helping.
To those who were reasoned in their debate – whether we agreed or not, thank you…
To those who descended into insults, name calling, threats or accusations you need to learn from your mates who are willing to hold a discussion.
You’re the cyclists car drivers have a problem with, and people like you who drive cars are the guys you all have a problem with.
I shall leave you with the following……….
Had the car driver stopped after the near miss, get out of the car apologise and check the cyclist was ok before moving on with a lesson learnt for the future, would this behaviour have made it on to video or been praised?
Would it ever have come to light and been discussed?
Or, if the cyclist had pulled out in front of the car and the reverse scenario occurred, would you feel the same?
Just something to ponder – i don’t know the answer
shaking like a leaf?
Of
shaking like a leaf?
Of course he’s shaking like a leaf, some eejit just barrelled past him at high speed apparently without due care and attention.
The question I would ask is
The question I would ask is “would Mr PH have stopped his souped up jag if Urbane happened to be in a car and sounded his horn?” Somehow I don’t think so.
There is a significant minority of motorists who use their vehicles to bully other drivers out of the way and bully more vulnerable road users off the roads altogether. Mr PH comes across as one of these individuals. Maybe he is an alright bloke when he isn’t behind a steering wheel but I would suggest for the benefit of his wee ticker or those ulcers he do the right thing and voluntarily hand his license in.
I’m now bored by this
I’m now bored by this discussion but would just like to make these final observations.
Harry.j came into this forum because he was sent a link to the vid. Harry.J has been thoughtful, polite and courteous in his contributions, I’m sure that he is sincere in his views, even though they are unfortunately misguided.
However, the unpleasant, foul rants given in response by some members of this forum are cyclings equivalent of Mr Penishead (aka Mark Angliss) and make me embarrassed to be associated with this thread. You do yourselves no favours guys and undermine your argument too boot!
andybwhite wrote:I’m now
Thank you….
may i amend one word….
change misguided to different?
Just for a bit of detente.
I’m still curious what action
I’m still curious what action will be taken against the driver. Having thought about it I’ve realised that reversing back over a roundabout is actually a very serious offence. The bloke in the Jag is a nutter and his behaviour suggests his temperament is not well suited to being a licence holder.
Harry J – you’ve been subject to a lot of insults that aren’t particularly fair. But please don’t stand up for this bully behind the wheel. While he may be a thoroughly decent fellow in other respects, his standard of driving is dangerously deficient.
OldRidgeback wrote:I’m still
You are correct I’ve been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I’ve also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?
i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I’ve said i don’t know if it’s Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions….. please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i’ve said not the ones you’d like to respond to. This isn’t politics!
Harry_J wrote:OldRidgeback
You are correct I’ve been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I’ve also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?
i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I’ve said i don’t know if it’s Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions….. please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i’ve said not the ones you’d like to respond to. This isn’t politics!— OldRidgeback
I’m a driver and motorcyclist too and one with an IAM course booked as it happens. By far the majority of adult cyclists are drivers also, which isn’t widely appreciated by those who don’t cycle. I’m as much a cyclist as I am a car driver or a motorcyclist and I suspect the majority of the people on this website would say the same, as only a few don’t drive.
I took your responses to be supportive of the Jaguar owner, though I appreciate you said the person you know doesn’t look like the person who committed the driving offences. I did look at the person’s Facebook page following a link posted in this thread and let’s just say some of the images showed someone who could’ve been the person in the video.
I do think the police need to be involved. Whoever it was driving the Jaguar at the time has committed a number of offences and his behaviour suggests he is not a suitable person to hold a driver’s licence. A licence is a permit to drive, that is not a right. This aggressive driver is clearly unsafe behind the wheel and that means he presents a danger to other road users of all types, whether cyclist, motorcyclist or car, van or bus occupant.
As I remember, the registered keeper of the vehicle is liable for offences committed in it unless the keeper can identify who was at the wheel at the time. While there may be an element of doubt as to who was driving, the vehicle is highly distinctive and its registration plate has been identified on the soundtrack.
Harry_J wrote:OldRidgeback
You are correct I’ve been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I’ve also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?
i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I’ve said i don’t know if it’s Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions….. please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i’ve said not the ones you’d like to respond to. This isn’t politics!— OldRidgeback
Ok actual words you’ve said:
You are clearly an idiot.
Bikebikebike wrote:Harry_J
You are correct I’ve been insulted just for putting a point of view.
I’ve also been misjudged, misquoted and generally vilified. Sounds a bit like how you guys feel on the road i guess so perhaps this is payback?
i appreciate you saying that but what you give with one hand you take away immediately. At what point have stood up for the driver? I’ve said i don’t know if it’s Mark and that the driver was in the wrong and i could not defend his actions….. please guys if you want a reasonable discussion stick to the words i’ve said not the ones you’d like to respond to. This isn’t politics!— Harry_J
Ok actual words you’ve said:
You are clearly an idiot.— OldRidgeback
Helpful, thanks….
At least I know what you think, fortunately i’m not the sort of person who judges myself by the words of those who know nothing about me.
However, in my view that sort of insulting judgement says more about you than it does about me.
I wish you all the best and hope you stay safe on the roads.
Harry_J wrote:
Helpful,
This is annoying because I had a post I was going to make explaining in detail why ‘bad cyclists are as dangerous as bad drivers’ was objectively wrong, and it began with the observation that its dispiriting that someone as obviously reasonable and non-idiotic as Harry_J here nonetheless believed in this myth.
(Then went on to Newtonian physics, psychology, neo-Darwinism and police statistics – but fill it in for yourselves, I can’t be bothered now!)
I think it is significant though, that lots of perfectly normal, non idiotic people, still somehow cling to this obviously wrong belief. The default state is for human beings to believe the things that its convenient for them to believe, according to their circumstances.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Or as the Indy put it, in one of my all time favourite headlines – “British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
bikebot
Oh dear. Not much else to be said really!
(the beliefs about teenage pregnancy are particularly, dramatically, wrong – wonder where that comes from?)
Classic headline though.
“Mark Dreamshack” ha
“Mark Dreamshack” ha ha….thats all you need to know really.
Nice car tho.
Nice car tho.
mooleur wrote:Nice car
Love the XJS. Cept this tool has committed an abomination by adding decals. Also the XJS is meant to purr and when she growls it’s a low menacing growl. Not that horrendous racket emitting from the twin pipes
Some people here seem to be
Some people here seem to be misdirecting their anger at Mr Penishead towards Harry_J for some reason.
You might not agree with what he says, but he makes his points calmly and politely. Replying with mudslinging and name calling just puts us all in a bad mood.
Stop it you twats! 😉
@Harry J. Whilst I completely
@Harry J. Whilst I completely disagree with the internet lynch mob approach against the ‘Penis Head’ driver, let me enlighten you as to why you may have encountered some hostility.
You post here addressing cyclists as though we are one entity and are of all the same mindset. You accuse ‘us’ of displaying blanket animosity. You accuse ‘us’ of keeping score. You ask why we can’t just Co exist? You cite your examples of bad cycling you’ve seen as though there is some collective responsibility we have and sins we all must atone for.
You even preface this by saying ‘at the risk of really annoying everybody’!
So you know what you’re doing, and yet get all offended when inevitably people argue with you. Pretty close to trolling and not the innocent exchange of views you make it out to be, IMO.
The fact is, most of the time cyclists and drivers get on. We do co exist. The problem occurs when road users, on both sides start the ‘them and us’ attitude, which you’re displaying.
If you hadn’t given up cycling and persisted, you would probably see this too. We have to co exist in this country because 60 million vehicle users would not be sustainable or desirable to anybody living on this island.
Some very interesting
Some very interesting observations here, I understand the concern that i may be trolling but let me say that i like a good debate and am always happy to accept a reasoned argument that differs from my own.
With that in mind, @700c I see what you are saying about my blanket observations and i may well have been unfair in making them as sweeping as I did… my only defence was that this being a cycling forum I was asking a broad question and also (incorrectly) felt that the atmosphere of conflict between cyclists and motorists would be an accepted situation.
So let me withdraw that aspect if I may, my examples were simply to highlight that it is not a one way street and perhaps to give an insight into how a motorist sees things.
I also accept that cyclists are motorists as well and no doubt see the same things time and again.
Personally i despair when I see dangerous and inconsiderate driving, there’s way to much of it. I drive all over the world and find UK roads to be the worst in terms of awareness and indeed general ‘niceness’ the only nation i have found that are less aware than us are the Belgians!
In terms of my comment about bad cyclists being as dangerous as bad drivers perhaps you’re only looking at it from one side……
A bad cyclist is far more likely to get hurt than a bad driver and even though the danger is to themselves it still has repercussions to their family, to the motorist that is involved, the healthcare, police and passers by, perhaps you took it as me suggesting that a bad cyclist might injure someone else? it’s less likely that will happen but it is still possible.
A bad motorist might well hit a cyclist and that’s a nightmare, but if they hit another car in traffic (i’m talking slow seeds here) then it’s not a big deal – a few metal scrapes and exchange of insurance details.
Whilst i’m on that subject – insurance – if a cyclist hits a car and damages it who pays? if a cyclist hurts someone, who pays for that?
it’s not a danger thing but it would be interesting to know if some of the bad cyclists might improve if they had to pay third party insurance and some sort of no claims was in jeopardy if they were involved in a collision or altercation?
Finally, I concede the point that we’re talking about a few bad apples here not cyclists as a group – most are fine and the co existence with those is working well, however if i can concede that point is there a similar concession to motorists?
I will happily debate Newtonian physics with you, which law would you like to start with?
Harry_J wrote:Some very
Yes, most drivers are perfectly good, most of the time. Two problems though – first, even good drivers still cost the rest of us money, and you still seem to believe that somehow a mistake made on a bike is as bad as a mistake made when in control of a few tonnes of metal.
Harry_J wrote:
In terms of my
Oh FFS! Are you for real? What other side is there to look at it from?! Other than, you know, the OBJECTIVE side of there being a MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between the two?!
Jesus freaking Christ on a bicycle, mate …
Do you know what ‘order of magnitude’ means? Is that a concept you can wrap your head around? Because that would really help you here.
Harry_J wrote:Some very
Just a few points you need to take onboard. Most adult cyclists are drivers, over 80% in fact and this is greater than the percentage of adults in the UK who are driving licence holders. So please appreciate that the division between cyclists and drivers exists largely in the heads of those many drivers who don’t cycle. There is only a tiny minority of cyclists who don’t drive.
I have to pull you up with regard to driving in other countries. I travel a lot for work and have driven in various countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas, as well as Europe. If you think the UK is dangerous, think again.
To put road safety in the UK into context, it has amongst the lowest killed and serious injury (KSI) statistics for its road network for any country in the world, along with countries including Norway, Sweden and Finland, all of which have far smaller populations and vehicle numbers.
The UK’s KSI rate is actually lower than that of the Netherlands or Denmark, both of which are considered amongst the most cycling friendly nations on the globe. Interestingly, Belgium has around twice the death rate on its roads of the Netherlands next door. There are reasons for this and basically enforcement of speeding or drink driving laws in Belgium are lax and penalties comparatively light.
Now put the UK’s KSI figures in context with other countries with similar sizes of populations, Italy and Thailand. Italy has around twice the fatality rate on its roads of the UK, Thailand has around 10 times the death rate.
A regards cyclists hitting pedestrians, the actual incidence of such events involving serious injury is slight. And in many instances these incidents are the fault of the pedestrians for listening but not looking before stepping out.
I’ve driven in many countries around the world and believe me, venturing onto the roads in countries like Thailand, India, South Africa, Nigeria or anywhere in the Middle East can be truly terrifying.
As for physics, the combined mass of a bicycle and its rider is only a tiny fraction of that of an average car. A bicycle travels slower and generate less turbulence than a car. What else do you need to know?
Many of us do have third
Many of us do have third party insurance…but I think it’d be a great idea to make it mandatory.
@harry_j
Really haven’t the
@harry_j
Really haven’t the energy (kinetic or otherwise!) but…
Cars have far more momentum/kinetic energy. Hence do far more damage. Also suffer less damage. Hence there’s a greater incentive for cyclists to be careful. Also, really bad cyclists remove themselves from the road, if not the world, while bad drivers just carry on indefinitely (_even_ after killing people, as with Joao Lopes and many others, and of course even driving bans don’t seem to stop many of them).
(As an aside, whenever I encounter a reckless/anti-social motorcyclist I end up thinking ‘no point getting angry, he won’t be around very long anyway’, because motorcyclists seem much closer to cyclists in terms of paying for their own mistakes)
Plus _even_ when its a bad cyclist who makes the mistake, its still the presence of the car which creates the danger in the first place – cyclists on their own couldn’t achieve that level of carnage, it requires a car to be present, even if its not the driver’s error.
Furthermore the actual statistics fit what one would assume from the psychology of self-preservation – motorists are more likely to be the party who made the disastrous error.
Your rather rare scenario of ‘cyclist causes car to crash into something else’ is cancelled out by the exact inverse scenario where a car causes a cyclist to crash. But that still leaves the far, far more common situation of a car hitting a cyclist directly.
As for costs and bike insurance – maybe cyclists should be obliged to have insurance, lots of them do anyway (bikes get nicked a lot after all) but is it really a huge problem considering how rarely it becomes an issue?
And I can’t help but notice how frequently I see damage to road infrastructure round here and I doubt that its cyclists who knock over bollards or smash road-side fences etc and then zoom off, and someone has to pay for repairing that.
Finally I’m not letting drivers off the hook of the huge damage their emissions cause in terms of health effects – that’s actually greater than the RTA casualties.
And personally, in the end, I tend to blame bad road design above all, rather than motorists. Obviously cyclists seem to be divided on that issue.
Ok, I’m on the verge of
Ok, I’m on the verge of giving up, there’s too much out of context quoting and what appears to me deliberate point scoring without wanting to take a point of view on board.
If you want me to say you’re right ok, I will, but I’m going to try one last time:
A bad cyclist is dangerous, more so than a bad driver…. TO HIMSELF. The bad cyclist is going to get hurt and that is dangerous.
Order of magnitude? I do understand scientific notation and mathematical concepts but the application of that concept doesn’t fit in this context to be honest, unless you are suggesting an exponential relationship between cyclists and motorists?
I get the idea of giving cyclists room, I even get the riding two abrest – it’s far more sociable, I’m glad to hear some cyclists have insurance – I do believe it should be mandatory – all other road users have to.
I’m not sure i can agree that the division is in the minds of drivers i think it’s on both sides but not with everyone… some cyclists and some drivers.
Education, tolerance and acceptance in all things especially sharing use of the road…..
Having said that i’m not sure I can accept Uruguay are better than we are… that just sucks.
Harry_J wrote:
Ok, I’m on the
No, I’m not quoting you out of context. I was quoting one particular thing, anyone reading this thread has the context to it right at hand. And I get your point of view – it’s just that it’s a point of view completely ignorant of basic physics and any and all accident statistics.
Yes, you may have an opinion – but that doesn’t mean it’s automagically an opinion worth having just because you happen to be the one having it. If it’s not got any merit, don’t keep clinging to it just because it’s yours. That’s childish.
“The bad cyclist is going to get hurt and that is dangerous”, are you serious? Someone above gave you the percentage of cases where that happens. It’s 2% if I remember correctly. Stop this border case bullshit wagging and finally admit that in the vast majority of cases when “accidents” happen on the road, it’s because of terrible driving. Of a motorised vehicle.
Anything is else just plain obvious apologetic nonsense. And no, there aren’t two sides about it of which one is not looked at just because you’re on a road cycling website, FFS …
No, it’s also less of a hassle for any driver wanting to overtake. Take a group ride of 30 people. With two abreast you will have a lot more opportunities to overtake them safely than you would have if they were riding single file simply because it won’t take you nearly as long to overtake them.
Harry_J wrote:I’m glad to
Yes, other than cyclists, horse riders & pedestrians walking on roads which have no pavements are well known for having insurance. As do small children that cycle to school. Those pedestrians make such a mess of cars when they crash into them. :S
Beekie
Harry_J wrote:I’m not sure i
According to research from the DfT, 83% of adult cyclists are drivers also. Those 83% of adult cyclists understand what it is to drive a motor vehicle and encounter cyclists, because they experience both worlds. Think about it. Think about it again. Throw out any notion you have of there being a divide, at least from the perspective of the cyclist.
As I said, it exists in the minds of that majority of drivers who do not cycle, while only 17% of adult cyclists do not hold a licence.
Bear in mind that DfT research also reveals that over 80% of incidents involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle are not the fault of the cyclist.
Seriously?
Userfriendly I am
Seriously?
Userfriendly I am stunned by your blinkered view.
How much room on a single carriageway do two bikes abreast take up?
The vast majority of accidents are the driver’s fault? even if that was the case it’s still more dangerous for the cyclist isn’t it?
iIt’s not a border case that in an accident a cyclist tends to get injured, the bad ones get injured more often….
There are some reasonable people on this forum and I hope you are one of them….. try not to treat me as the enemy, instead why not open your eyes to the possibility that I am simply making a point and, contrary to your baseless assertions, a valid one – Just because it differs from yours does not mean it has no merit.
Please explain to me how a bad cyclist having getting involved in an accident that causes him injury is not dangerous – and saying he only hurts himself is not acceptable – anyone getting hurt is unacceptable in my book or, do you feel otherwise?
Is it ok that a bad cyclist removes himself from the gene pool because he wasn’t any good?
On your second point I have had experience of that as well and you are right it was my presence that caused the accident….
Some cyclists racing down a Tour de France special stage (not race time) took a downhill blind bend at speed – I was coming the other way, they saw me and hit the brakes causing a pile up. I stayed with them for 30 mins administering first aid and waiting for an ambulance. I was on my side of the road and they were on theirs but if i had not been there would the pile up have happened?
So you could say it was my fault in which case you are correct and have proved your point but what you’re effectively saying is that cyclists will be safe if there are no cars.
It’s points like yours that concern me and make me feel that you don’t want to share the road, you want it for yourself.
Every human life is important, be they good cyclists or bad motorists, just because i choose to have a safety cage around me doesn’t mean i don’t care about those who choose not to.
I thought we were getting somewhere with some mutual respect developing but sadly i now depart this conversation with the feeling that there will always be those who are holier than thou and blinkered as to other options.
I’ve learnt a lot, some good stuff and have a lot of food for thought so thanks for that. but at no point has anyone picked up on the humour or the detente.
Life isn’t all about being right, sometimes it’s about learning and gaining another perspective.
good night all.
Harry_J wrote:
Seriously?
Excuse me? They take, or should take, just as much room as a car would. Would you overtake a slower car on a single carriageway when there is oncoming traffic on the right hand lane? No, you would not. So what the fuck makes you think you are entitled to treat cyclists any differently, who have no crumble zones, nothing in the way of protection against your speeding armoured steel carriage, and may need to swerve around potholes or shit that cars leave behind on the road?
How much room do we take up? As much room as we fucking need! And you, you wait until it’s safe to overtake – or you don’t overtake. If you haven’t read the Highway Code, this might be news for you: you have to overtake any vehicle including bicycles in a safe manner by giving enough room no matter whether they are riding single file or two abreast. One single carriageways that means waiting until there is no oncoming traffic and then using the right hand lane to overtake. Just like you would overtake a slower car. Highway Code rule 163, it’s even got a nice picture for the hard of reading.
There is no “even if that was the case” here, that is the case. Look it up.
And that doesn’t make the cyclist more dangerous than the driver. Which was what you were saying. It is dangerous for the cyclist, indeed – guess who is the party posing the danger? Correct, the driver. It’s not that hard to understand, is it? Unless you’re hellbent on not understanding it.
See, this is why people think you may just be trolling. You should be well aware that I wasn’t calling a cyclist getting hurt a border case. I was calling a cyclist being responsible for it a border case. And I like to think that was quite obvious. Unless one were to deliberately ignore it and turn it into saying the complete opposite – which is a main trolling tactic to get a rise out of people.
It’s not the fact that it differs from mine that means it has no merit – it’s that it has nothing to do with any known facts. Which have been pointed out to you by more than half a dozen people here, and yet you remain entirely resistant to either comprehending them or admitting to comprehending them.
My ‘assertions’ are not baseless, they are backed up by publicly available statistics, which is why the percentage numbers you’ve been quoted here have a tendency to be consistent: we’ve seen the statistics. You either have not or you are ignoring them. But yes, I’m sure the Department for Transport just makes shit up so that you can keep clinging to your “valid view point”.
One last time: yes, in the vast majority of cases of accidents involving a cyclist and a motorist it’s the latter that is responsible. That’s what the official statistics are saying. There is no debating that, there is no “looking at it from another side”, nada. It’s terrible driving that makes the road dangerous. Not cycling two abreast, not suddenly swerving around a pothole, not veering to the right for half a metre because of a wind gust, not being in the way of a Neanderthal with a licence.
Your ‘point’ is not valid. It won’t get magically valid by repeating it, or by insisting it’s valid because it’s yours or because it differs from mine, or any of that shit – it is simply an objectively wrong argument to make which flies in the face of the known facts. It’s not based on real world numbers, it’s not based on anything – it’s stomping your foot on the ground and shouting “You’re mean!”
Sorry, but when the topic is something that is a threat to your life and physical safety on a regular basis because of the ignorance of certain road users, it’s kind of hard to react positively to ‘humour’ from just such a person.
Oh, this just takes the cake, mate … Please take your own advice here. Please. Gain some fucking perspective.
I’d just like to pick up on
I’d just like to pick up on one thing:
Less than a tractor, or another car. And it’s irrelevant anyway, because you should be overtaking even a single bike as if it were a car — right over the other side of the road, plenty of space. Not squeezing past in the face on oncoming traffic as often happens. Locally I seem to experience a normal distribution of overtaking distances — about 1 in 10 is too close, 1 in 10 is completely in the opposite carriageway, the rest are spread somewhere in between. And of course you get the occasional nugget who, for (real) example, both passes too close, in the face of oncoming traffic, and either forgets or doesn’t care that he’s towing a trailer that’s wider than his car.
@userfriendly it appears
@userfriendly it appears that you have lost your temper….
Whilst you retained it there was some hope that this would develop into an intellectual battle.
Sadly I cannot in good conscience engage in such a battle with an unarmed man.
Your polarised abusive stance means you’ve let yourself and those on this forum who are able to conduct themselves with good grace down.
Enjoy being right in your ivory tower, as i’ve said many times before being right does not shield you from harm on the road.
I sincerely hope whilst on the road you do not act in the manner in which you conduct yourself here.
Harry_J wrote:
@userfriendly
Yes, wilful ignorance will bring that out in people. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Mate, that statement paired with the standard of reading comprehension you’re displaying here just makes me laugh. It’s not a happy “ha ha ha” kind of laugh, more of a pained “heh, funny that”.
Why don’t you get off your fucking high horse and actually respond to what people are saying? Oh, it’s the tone in which it is said now is it? How about you don’t go out of your way of ignoring and misrepresenting those things, or flat out turning them up on their head just so you can bash your straw men?
You made a ‘point’. People told you why that’s a nonsense point to make. You keep repeating it. Some people lost interest, others lost their ‘temper’ – yet still trying to explain to you why it’s a nonsense point, including myself. You still keep repeating it. This ‘intellectual battle’ as you call it has all the hallmarks of a muppet going on a forum for the sole purpose of trolling it.
And again with the sidetracking and distracting. Being shielded from harm on the road is not the issue here. The issue is, and you started it by making a nonsense claim, who is responsible for causing the harm.
The official statistics on this are clear. Feel free to keep ignoring it, feel free to paint yourself as the victim here, but don’t expect me to take you seriously if you do.
If you want an ‘intellectual battle’, go trolling elsewhere – but if you want a sensible conversation, try actually being sensible yourself for a change and actually read and comprehend what is being said. That’s kind of a major prerequisite for that kind of thing.
Harry_J wrote:@userfriendly
Seriously, you’re one of the most persistent trolls I’ve seen on here.
Chapeau!
Oh, and mandatory insurance
Oh, and mandatory insurance for cyclists is a non-starter for the reasons alluded to above. Where do you draw the line? Does my 8yo need insurance to ride to school? What about horses, they use roads too. Pedestrians? It’d be pointlessly expensive to administer with vanishingly small benefit. Motor vehicles are required to have insurance because they have the capacity to cause enormous damage. Bikes simply don’t have that capacity, because physics.
@userfriendly, Accusing
@userfriendly, Accusing someone of being a troll is just one way of deflecting the argument you appear to be telling me to look at your perspective whilst refusing to do the same. I sadly choose not to respond to you any further. Sadly, as I sense that if we met face to face this conversation would be a lot more fun and we may have more in common than you realise.
To the other posters,
Why I am not responding to everyones points is because I’ve either already done so or because it’s got to the point where they are hidden in one of many long posts and I may have missed them.
I’m gratified that we’re still engaging but you can keep quoting stats at me til the cows come home we all know there are lies, damn lies and stats don’t we. I’m not ignoring the fact that most cyclists are also drivers but that goes for good and bad ones too, and lets be honest we all know the extremists who are militant in their cycling and those who are the same with cars. That’s not the issue, i only ignore it because it’s not important who drives and who doesn’t it’s about an general feeling I have that i was asking about.
I’m simply talking from my real world experience and giving an opinion – i am experiencing an opposing opinion from you, It seems somewhat draconian and oppressive to suggest that your opinion is right and anything else is rubbish – stats only go so far they are not the be all and end all. Surely that’s the point of a discussion forum or would you prefer I do not put forward my views… if that’s the case please tell me and i will happily go back to doing what i should be!
In the interim I will answer a point or two…
Cyclists should indeed get all the room they need.
However, if you imagine the volume of cars / cyclists on a city street it’s not practical to give them all a cars width because you would spend all your time on the wrong side of the road….
So the answer is – don’t overtake? in theory yes i agree but practically who wants to drive everywhere at the speed of a bike?
So where do you go from there?
Obviously specific cycle paths would be the best option but in the absence of those and the fact that sharing is the reality it means that cyclists are going to lose out…. it’s not right but it is the reality.
On the subject of insurance, you’ve used the argument that a car is more dangerous than a cyclist due to (wrongly in my opinion) the application of order of magnitude, the same could be said for cyclists versus pedestrians no? ok that may be a bit tongue in cheek but there’s always a bigger fish somewhere!
I believe all those who are legally bound to use the road instead of the pavement should at the very least be covered with third party insurance, so not pedestrians but cyclists, horses, cars bikes, trucks and segways (which are currently illegal in this country because of insurance issues)
Harry_J wrote:
@userfriendly,
I have looked at your perspective. And I have told you that your perspective is skewed and completely resistant to facts, and why. Just like everyone else on here has done.
The fact that you keep insisting on it most likely means one of two things: you’re either very dumb or you’re a troll. Do you want me to call you dumb instead?
Harry_J wrote:
I sense that
Oh, you ‘sense’ that you’re the kind of guy I would like to go have a beer with after he passed me way too closely because it’s ‘not practical’ to drive safely? Fun!
On any given city road with lots of traffic, I’ll usually be faster on my bike than you will be in your car. Most of the time it will be entirely pointless for you to overtake me – you’ll just end up at the back of a queue a few seconds earlier than me, where I will inevitably be rolling past you again.
Ah, the good old “get off my roads” line. Nice.
No, it means that drivers have to learn how to share.
No, the reality is that your ‘opinion’ is a load of self-entitled bullshit.
Harry_J wrote:
you can keep
Okay …
So, just to check, you’re saying the Department for Transport is making this up?
Harry_J wrote:However, if you
It’s bloody simple: Don’t overtake. You’re legally obliged NOT TO DO SO.
jacknorell wrote:
It’s bloody
Yes, but apparently it’s ‘not practical’ to give a toss about what you’re legally obliged to do … 8| There’s a red light to be waited in front of, and those queues aren’t going to form themselves now are they!
By the way perhaps it’s worth
By the way perhaps it’s worth making a point that seems to have been lost……
When i say things like “it’s not right but it is the reality”
I’m just highlighting the status quo, I am not saying I agree with it I am just saying that is how things are – in fact most of the time I disagree with it.
I have no issue with cyclists, I would prefer things to be better so I could be one again but lets be honest things are rubbish and the car driver gets blamed all the time, as someone said earlier the accident occurs just because the car is there whether it’s the cars fault or not……. 🙁
‘Oh, and mandatory insurance
‘Oh, and mandatory insurance for cyclists is a non-starter for the reasons alluded to above. Where do you draw the line? Does my 8yo need insurance to ride to school? What about horses, they use roads too. Pedestrians? It’d be pointlessly expensive to administer with vanishingly small benefit. ‘
Where do you draw the line for insurance for cyclists? At cyclists. Not horses or pedestrians. Surely that’s pretty obvious.
andyp wrote:’Oh, and
Well, not that obvious. Not unless you can demonstrate there’s a meaningful, qualititative difference between the groups in terms of their likelihood to cause injury or death to others. Not that I know what the relevant figures are, mind.
Also, you are saying you _do_ include the 8 year-old?
@Harry_J
“It’s points like
@Harry_J
“It’s points like yours that concern me and make me feel that you don’t want to share the road, you want it for yourself. ”
Well, yes, to some degree I do. I want a fair share of it. I want to see separation as much as possible (by no means do all cyclists agree on this, mind! Not by a very long way!), I want a fair share of roadspace to be re-allocated to modes of travel that are more space-efficient than cars. There just isn’t room on the roads to give so much emphasis to cars, there isn’t the space (in cities).
It would also be nice if the really bad motorists were in fact taken off the road long-term by legal means instead of being given very short driving bans (that many of them ignore anyway).
“With great power comes great responsibility” (so said one of the Spiderman movies!). Either motorists need to behave perfectly – because they are the ones creating the danger – or more needs to be done to take some roadspace away from them to keep others safe.
Harry_J. I may not agree with
Harry_J. I may not agree with some of your points but kudos to you on the way you’re handling yourself in the face of foaming-mouth sweary ranting.
@Harry_J
“Is it ok that a bad
@Harry_J
“Is it ok that a bad cyclist removes himself from the gene pool because he wasn’t any good? ”
Sorry, but you completely miss the point here, which is that a bad motorist can cause _repeated_ injuries and deaths because _they_ aren’t the ones taken off the road.
I could point you to cases of bad drivers who killed or maimed cyclists and pedestrians multiple times. I seriously doubt you could show me one of a bad cyclist who died more than once!
This has nothing to do with a whether bad cyclist deaths are ‘OK’. The point is they can only happen once. Even bad injuries are likely to cause a cyclist to decide to give it up. Being a crap road cyclist is self-limiting (the same may be true for crap motorcyclists).
This is just one factor that explains the recorded facts – that accidents involving motorised vehicles and bikes are far more likely to be due to errors by the driver. The crap drivers stay out there, adding to the tally of driver errors and repeatedly getting away with it, the crap cyclists don’t.
(If the legal system worked perfectly, of course, this wouldn’t be the case, but sadly it really doesn’t, not by a very long way).
I’m sorry that people are getting irate on here. But any serious topic (and it is serious, becuase people are dying on the roads) where people are just never going to agree is likely to get heated eventually. (Plus, you know, this is the internet, that’s how it is).
It’s absolutely obvious. Why
It’s absolutely obvious. Why would you need to consider horse riders if you were deciding if cyclists should be insured? If you are deciding if *all road users* need to be insured, I could see why equestrians would come into the equation. Otherwise, you may as well include whether or not some windsurfer sails are red, as this is equally irrelevant. I’m not sure you’ve got the hang of this.
In terms of the ages within the cycling group – yes.
andyp wrote:It’s absolutely
Because otherwise one would be being arbitrary and inconsistent – which is generally a poor approach to law-making. If you want to declare there’s something that distinguishes cyclists from horse-riders and pedestrians that is relevant to the issue of insurance, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just a punitive act of random prejudice.
(Note I don’t actually know if the data could in fact be found to demonstrate this significant difference or not, but without it it makes no sense to introduce a rule for one arbitrarily-defined group of road-users rather than other, any more than a rule saying you must have insurance if you ride a red-coloured vehicle but not if its green “why would you need to consider green-coloured vehicles when deciding whether to have compulsory insurance for red-coloured ones?)
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Isn’t it usually going by the amount of danger posed / damaged caused? Don’t the monies you have to pay for your insurance go up if you cause an accident? How much damage is caused by cars each year? Now, and how much by bicycles? By horses? By shoes (including Dr Martens)?
I may be wrong, but isn’t that how we ended up with mandatory insurance for motorised vehicles and no mandatory insurance for non-motorised ones? Seems a pretty consistent approach to me.
Harry J – I can see that you
Harry J – I can see that you are trying as hard as you can to make a reasoned argument; your English is good and you clearly spend a lot of time crafting each post you make on this website. You don’t swear or use insulting language and, in my view, have every right to express your opinion.
However, it is widely accepted that, when debating, if a number of people are able to debunk your theory using well-researched facts from peer-reviewed studies, you should concede to the opposition, or at least produce some facts to bolster your argument, rather than falling back on the same anecdotes and suppositions that have seen you widely mocked on this forum. To endlessly repeat the same point is, at best, a breathtaking display of ignorance and, at worst, simple trolling.
I love commuting, racing and trekking by bicycle. I also love racing and road trips in cars. I’m not showing off, merely proving that petrol runs in my veins, when I tell you that my own car is a Ferrari 355. Guess when I feel most at risk? Is it on the track, or on the autobahn at 150mph? No, it’s when commuting through central London on a bicycle. Why? Because some people are inattentive, impatient morons. These traits manifest themselves as dangerous driving, nuisance cycling and careless…err…pedestrian-ing. The great divide between cyclists and motorists is entirely in your head.
I cannot believe that you honestly think that, when cycling, I should just accept that I might die or be severely injured because some idiot in a car just can’t wait five seconds to join the back of the next traffic queue. When someone is killed by a car when walking on a pavement, we don’t as a society just throw our arms in the air and say “oh well, shit happens” – there is outrage. Deaths caused by drink drivers aren’t simply ignored because “that’s what happens when pubs have car parks” – we’ve made it socially unacceptable and legally very serious to be drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. When I’m cycling, I pose an infinitesimal risk to others around me. The ridiculous notion that one car might swerve into another when avoiding me is just that – ridiculous. Even if it were to happen, the occupants of the cars will be fine.
I suggest you just give it up, because you’re not going to win the argument, especially on a bike forum. I would be interested to see what sort of response you get in the “Pedal Powered” section of PistonHeads. I would hope it is similar to the response you’ve had here on road.cc.
srchar wrote:my own car is a
Look at your wad.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2008/11/11/loadsamoney460x276.jpg
(Just kidding with you, it was there for the taking.)
srchar wrote:Harry J – I can
Wow this is still going?
Ok i’ve not got the energy to read all the post made since my last one in full but this one caught my eye
srchar, we may well know each other 😉 especially if you know what what happening at Dunsfold today and tomorrow ….
I’m not expecting to change anyones mind on here, but i do expect to hear opinions that differ from my own so i can add those to my cerebral database and draw on them.
In legal terms there’s nothing new but in terms of opinions i have learnt…
Having said that, i am concerned that i’m being accused either of being the person in the video or a simple troll (or an idiot – which sadly seems to be the least insulting of the 3 🙁 )
I still feel you guys are not getting my actual point of view… as you’ve said above – people are debunking what they think are my theories. The reason i keep coming back to it is that I don’t think they get what my actual point is… either because they are misreading my posts or more likely that i’m not putting it well.
so………
i’m not saying things shouldn’t change, i’m not saying car drivers are saints and cyclists are sinners i’m just saying that it’s dangerous out there, cyclists are the most vulnerable and most other road users are unaware of their responsibilities in light of that.
Therefore in my opinion (and i reiterate this being the status quo I perceive which i do not feel is fair but is a reality in my view) cyclists have to understand that the burden of responsibility for their safety falls upon their own shoulders and that cyclists cannot rely on the law, cannot count on drivers to suddenly become cyclist aware and cyclists as the vulnerable should take on the mindset that being in the right does not keep you safe.
You may feel the last point is redundant but for me, that is the one that a lot of cyclists don’t take on board and for me that is the scariest thing.
That’s my view of how things are now…. it’s taken me this long to say it in such clear terms so i’m sorry about that but perhaps not responding to specific accusations makes it easier to put a point across…. or maybe it doesn’t let’s see……
Harry_J wrote:
… i’m just
Harry_J, no one here is saying that being in the right keeps you safe. I’m not sure who you’re trying to convince of that because I’m not seeing anyone needing to be convinced there.
However, the trouble with your position as expressed in that paragraph there is that as a cyclist, you can ride as safely as you want and you can still get wiped out by an idiot who drives his or her car carelessly. Trust me when I say that an experienced bicycle commuter can pretty much be relied upon to do everything right. But that doesn’t keep him or her safe from dangerous muppets like the one in the video.
You will notice that the cyclist in the video did everything right. He looked to his right hand side to ensure that he was clear for entering the roundabout. He even managed to brake in time for a road user that did everything wrong.
So, I’m not sure what you are suggesting for us to do, other than what most of us are already doing, i.e. riding defensively and in accordance with the rules of the road. We already understand that. But do you understand that that still doesn’t protect us from dangerous drivers? What is your point here? Maybe you really are not putting it well.
Harry_J wrote:Therefore in my
Here’s what you’re too wedded to your ‘theory’ to understand:
We’re 100% aware that despite using road craft well, following the Highway Code, and being defensive, we’re not safe because (some) drivers simply don’t want to bother being careful drivers.
We take that as fact, but refuse to let those drivers be excused for their dangerous negligence.
jacknorell wrote:Harry_J
Here’s what you’re too wedded to your ‘theory’ to understand:
We’re 100% aware that despite using road craft well, following the Highway Code, and being defensive, we’re not safe because (some) drivers simply don’t want to bother being careful drivers.
We take that as fact, but refuse to let those drivers be excused for their dangerous negligence.— Harry_J
I totally get that, and as one of the few non abusers left in the conversation I thank you…
I’m not wedded to my theory – what you’ve actually written is the whole crux of what i have been saying……
Where i disagree is your point about being 100% aware of the situation.
I have no doubt you personally are aware, However I do not feel you can speak for every cyclist and whilst that doesn’t excuse the car drivers one iota it does make me wonder if those who lack that awareness do so out of lack of care, lack of knowledge or straightforward belligerence….
I feel all of the above hold, some cyclists are great some are ignorant, some are belligerent and some just don’t care….
Once again (and it’s sad that I have to keep saying this) It doesn’t mean that car drivers should not be held responsible for what they do or don’t do, but I do not feel that cyclists can absolve themselves of all responsibility for accidents if they do not take all possible steps to ensure it especially given that even if they do the chances are some idiot in a car will take them out anyway….
Does that make sense?
if it doesn’t pm me your phone number and i will happily chat (in a totally unheated way – this is not me saying oiiii you, outside!) it over because i can see what i am saying and it isn’t far off what you are…but i’ve no doubt someone will jump on this post and tell me i’m a troll or an idiot or whatever their word of choice may be this evening…
Personally i don’t really care what you think I am…. A man knows who he is without the need for external validation but I do find it funny when even my reason for being on this forum is questioned….
please for the love of (whoever the patron saint of cyclists may be) why oh why would I have ventured over here and onto this thread if i had not been sent a link…
Your own webmaster will be able to tell you my ip address and if he is any good also the fact that i arrived here after clicking a link…
Harry_J wrote:the burden of
Nay, nay and thrice nay. I’ve commuted in central London by bike for ten years and I’m still here, which is pretty good evidence that I know how to cycle defensively. I’ve been had off three times and it’s only because I’ve played quite a bit of contact sport and know how to take a fall that I’ve not been badly hurt. On precisely none of those three occasions did I contribute to the collision, other than by being there; one was a close overtake by a car pulling a wide trailer, one was a taxi doing a U-turn directly into me, and the most recent was a close overtake/dooring combo. There was nothing I could have done to avoid coming off, otherwise I’d have done it! There have been countless other near-misses that I have managed to narrowly avoid.
I would LOVE to be able to take full responsibility for my safety on the road, because getting hit hurts and 33 is a tad young to be made into road pizza. So, what do you suggest I do, other than stop riding my bike entirely, that will allow me to shoulder the entire burden of responsibility for my own safety?
srchar wrote:Harry_J
Is there a horse in here or has it gone up Pompeii? 😉
I agree i didn’t put my point across perfectly in my comment to your earlier….
Does this help?
Once again (and it’s sad that I have to keep saying this) It doesn’t mean that car drivers should not be held responsible for what they do or don’t do, but I do not feel that cyclists can absolve themselves of all responsibility for accidents if they do not take all possible steps to ensure it especially given that even if they do the chances are some idiot in a car will take them out anyway….
finally, serious question – I assume you were in earnest re your 355 ownership, is it a GTS, GTB or spider? and in all honesty do you know what was happening at Dunsfold today?
If so then i believe we do know each other….
Harry_J wrote:
I do not feel
Again, you’re not making any sense. None. What is this sentence supposed to say, really? Do you even know what you mean?
It tries stringing the following segments together:
And it fails horribly. Technically, this is an English sentence. But it makes no sense. Do they, or don’t they take all possible steps? That’s an either-or proposition – and yet in both cases they are responsible for getting wiped out? What?
I think you’re full of shite, you have no clue how to argue your point, and your actual point really is “get off my road, or it’ll be your own fault if I run you over”. Isn’t it?
Good job, “Harry” (Mark). Good job.
Harry_J wrote:I assume you
I’m a car nut, so it’s a manual GTB, of course. Am aware of the charity event at Dunsfold but didn’t want to show up Chris Evans’ LaFerrari with my Capristo.
I really don’t think we know eachother, by the way.
srchar wrote:So, what do you
OK, Harry_J… Read this statement, which is what I tried to say before. No, read it again, and again, and the text that went with it.
Yes, we’re 100% aware (at least on this thread) about exactly how it works.
And again…
The only way that we can cycle, is to hand over some of our safety into the hands of other road users. That’s fine.
It’s the careless & homicidal we have issues with!
Mmmmm – couldn’t you guys be
Mmmmm – couldn’t you guys be out riding bikes with the time you’re spending on here arguing about a video?
BikeBud wrote:
Mmmmm –
It’s my recovery week. 😛
Just a note on the mandatory
Just a note on the mandatory insurance for cyclists. ALL household contents policy’s provide cover for your legal liability (third party insurance) when cycling on the road or even illegally on the pavement.
I used to be an underwriter for a large household insurance company and the cost of this insurance was considered to be less that 10p on the price of a £150 policy.
Why was it so low ? …. Well, on a book of business with over 2 million policyholders we had 2 claims in 4 years. Only one of which resulted in a payment to a third party. The other we defend as the cyclist hadn’t done anything wrong.
So the vast majority of cyclist do have insurance, even if they don’t know it.
Ah, as I thought. You’ve
Ah, as I thought. You’ve missed the point completely.
andyp wrote:Ah, as I thought.
Sorry was they me, I’ve only read the 30 most recent posts. I thought I was supporting your point.
Most cyclists do have insurance, including your 8year old (if you have household contents insurance) and even if they don’t they are very, very unlikely to cause an accident which results in a claim being made against them.
I thought it funny that in
I thought it funny that in all the fuss no one has pointed out that this guy’s head, does indeed, look like a penis. 🙂
HarryJ the more you look into
HarryJ the more you look into this the more you will come to accept that what may at first seem apparent is not born out by facts, you seem a reasonable guy so I’m sure you will get there in the end. You will find that there are problems caused by lack of infrastructure, education and enforcement but most of the crap is caused by dickheads. Dickheads of course can use any form of conveyance, you never know who they are until too late and when two meet hilarity usually ensues.
It seems the thread has gone a little OT so please could we take a brief interlude in this riveting argument that we have had numerous times before with various folk to have another laugh at Mr “Penishead Cockfacedcunt” =))
I do hope that you made a
I do hope that you made a trip to your local Police team and showed them the video, he has committed driving without due care, and public order offences. Best of all it’s been recorded for the magistrates to watch.
He truly is a penis head. :))
Usually road users give way
Usually road users give way to their right.
The cyclist looked right and saw it was safe to proceed.
The motorist was on the left and did not give the traffic to his right right of way.
So replace the cyclist with a motor vehicle and the situation would have been a front/side impact accident.
I’m a motorist 98% of the time, but a triathlete the rest of the time.
“So the answer is – don’t
“So the answer is – don’t overtake? in theory yes i agree but practically who wants to drive everywhere at the speed of a bike?
So where do you go from there?”
Get a bike?
Can we avoid the use of
Can we avoid the use of “accident” please, crashes may not be deliberate but most are avoidable, therefore not an accident.
Harry_J wrote:
imagine a
Harry_J wrote:
imagine a cyclist swerving suddenly, a car avoiding him and crashing into another?
Or her. It’s called not giving sufficient space.
climber wrote:
Harry_J
This. Somehow, some drivers seem to have this notion that it’s perfectly acceptable not to leave a sufficient safety distance to the road user in front. They are habitually breaking the law and putting others at risk, and then are offended if you point it out to them.
Have to agree, just give
Have to agree, just give video to the police to decide. Quite clearly the cyclist looked to their right, and entered the roundabout when safe to do so. The car was absolutely flying along! Quite clearly didn’t look or didn’t see the cyclist. The driver is clearly at fault here. Sure the reversing back round corner and bursting into road rage isn’t that legal either. Attempts to defend his actions are pointless
Just to drag this hilarious
Just to drag this hilarious thread a little bit back towards topic, I remain incredulous at drivers such as this. It seems a prevalent attitude amongst the 4 wheeled community (of which I am also one, 2 cars on the drive, 2 motorcycles in the garage, one of which is about to be chopped in for a new one (woohoo!) and 3 bicycles gently purring in their stable) that they are not, under any circumstance, allowed to be criticised by a cyclist, regardless of what they may have done wrong. I’ll elaborate. Car driver commits driving error. Be it close pass, high speed close pass, close pass through pinch point, left hook, overtaking directly towards you, SMIDSY, just don’t fucking see you or care either way ‘cos you’re just a cyclist. Said cyclist shows their displeasure at what the driver’s done, as in this case. Driver then further abuses cyclist, either by gesture, verbally or physically. The physically never happens to me, unfortunately, despite being my lowest weight for years, I still look like a cage fighter, but my point is this; the driver’s fucked up, but they are not allowed to be criticised. They’ve done something wrong, but as “just a cyclist”, you’re not allowed to make any comment or indication that their near miss, which would’ve seriously hurt or even killed you, has made you unhappy. However, not only are they “allowed” to execute such a manouevre, if you do happen to show your ire at it, they are further allowed to act in a selfish and entitled manner and call your pint a puff. Why is this? Do people go through some sort of mindshift when they get behind the wheel of a car? Or are we, as a society, incapable of accepting criticism, especially when in control of a two ton motorised vehicle? Maybe it’s just me…
the mind shift people go thru
the mind shift people go thru is power.
as soon as you give someone a motor they are more powerful, and some people want to exert that power.
examples:
car driver is annoyed and cyclists slowing them down, they are impeding their power.
truck drivers bully car drivers and everyone else because they are biggest.
busses push out in front of cars and taxis.
tax drivers have more experience and are bigger than a lot of cars to push in front of them.
a cyclist gets on a bike and is faster than a pedestrian, sometimes they exert that power over them and shout at stupid pedestrians crossing the road or being idots
.. so, i think, generally speaking, its a food chain thing, everyone wants to give s**t to the weaker person below them! its not right, but generally its true
Nope, it’s not just you. I
Nope, it’s not just you. I think some of it has to do with how we as a society regard cars. Yes, they may have made an error but they’re the grown ups operating the grown up stuff, and you’re just playing with your kids toy, how dare you criticise them …
And some of it of course has to do with such people being complete and utter muppets regardless of whether they’re in a car or not. It’s not all drivers – I’ve had some drivers apologise to me, and I do not look like a cage fighter.
I also have to say, as others
I also have to say, as others have already pointed out, that the story which you put forward here about what led you to this thread on this website isn’t exactly what I would call plausible. Bit dodgy, TBH.
Harry_J = TROLL
Harry_J = TROLL
Airzound wrote:
Harry_J =
IMHO the most likely explanation is that it’s actually “Mr Penishead Cockfacedcunt” himself. After calming down somewhat he must have realised that pulling that kind of stunt with his company name written in nice big letters on his car in front of a camera wasn’t the smartest thing he’d ever done, and proceeded to google about it, found this thread, and figured he’d attempt some damage control by trying to convince everyone that this wasn’t Mark because “Mark had hair some years ago”. Over the course of the next 48 hours this certainly morphed into a hopeless attempt at trolling seeing how he wasn’t getting anywhere.
This doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t expect to have his views challenged – it also doesn’t mean that he couldn’t possibly learn something from the experience.
Anyone checked the video
Anyone checked the video timings? Approaching the roundabout the car covers approaching 30 feet in 0.2 seconds, and then check the distance he takes to stop after noticing that the cyclist has crashed/stopped abruptly. Not exactly 30mph – especially when the revving engine is also clearly heard on the approach.
Camera position/angle could have been better though, a bit too much sky.
oh and this is the email I
oh and this is the email I got…..
On 18 Jun 2014, at 14:55, andy wrote:
From: andy Subject: [your-subject]
Message Body:
I see you are connected with the guy in this news article – do you really think this is wise?
http://road.cc/content/news/121405-video-my-name-penis-head-—-meet-britains-sweariest-driver
—
Harry_J wrote:oh and this is
Oh look, I got an email too, just now:
userfriendly wrote:Harry_J
Ok, For this one I will bite……
Perhaps where you are the world revolves around you….
Perhaps you are so narcissistic that you think your opinion is the only one that actually matters?
considering I was sent that email (but have decided not to put the email address it was sent from because I felt perhaps that would not be a nice thing to do) and i know that is the truth It will give me a real indication of the sort of people I am speaking to to find out if someone is willing to hold up their hand to sending it.
If they do then I am happy to meet some human beings, if they decide not to then I sense I will need to go elsewhere for intellect coupled with honesty and integrity.
Or in simple terms – it was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the person who sent the mail who clearly has had some interaction with this thread hence sending me the link.
So, it’s none of your business you petty and argumentative excuse for a human being – It would be appreciated if your keyboard warrior skills were pitted against someone who has a similar iq to you, I hear the teletubbies are returning perhaps that might be a good start?
If i want your opinion in the future, I shall give it to you.
Harry_J wrote:
So, it’s none
=D> Glad you managed to remain as calm and polite as you expect everyone else to be. Oh, wait …
Sense, this makes none.
Harry_J wrote:oh and this is
Firstly, I am astonished that this thread is still going on. As I said before, I got bored with the deeply unpleasant nature of the posts from some of the contributors on here. You are an embarrassment to the majority of the cycling community.
Harry_J, I don’t understand why you have stayed on so long. It seems to me that you have tried to engage in a philosophical debate about cycling safety which is separate from the original issue about the standard of driving displayed by Mark Angliss. Unfortunately you are debating with people who are incapable of understanding that and thus respond with abuse – much in the way that many testosterone fuelled drivers do when challenged about their driving standards. Forums such as this are the wrong place to have that sort of debate as they are inhabited by people who have a fixed viewpoint and won’t explore anything outside of that. I’d be happy to have that debate over a pint. but that ain’t gonna happen.
Secondly, it was I who invited you to view this video. I similarly invited as many of Mark’s contacts as I could find from my sleuthing, as I am sure some of those would definitely not want to be associated with such behaviour. I actually thought that you would be the least likely to engage given the nature of your business, but bravo to you for doing so. All I can say is, surely you must have better things to do. I did receive replies from others that Mark claims to be involved with and perhaps the knock-on effect will cause him to rethink his behaviour in future.
I’m aware that I’m sticking me neck out here as I’m probably traceable and so could attract repercussions from either Mark (Mr Penishead) or some of the idiots on this forum for being too kind to you. But hey, I think I’ve taken the right stance … and its a common name. 🙂
Now I really do think this thread has run its course.
Bye
andybwhite wrote:Harry_J
Oh, I don’t think so. Not while that nice Mr Harry J is trolling his rubbish and the likes of his acquaintance, Mr Mark (Penis Head) Angliss, are still lose on the road.
It’s got a long way to go yet.
jova54 wrote:andybwhite
😀
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Andy, I wish you luck with the people on this forum.
You know the best thing about other peoples kids?
You can give them back.
😉
Did I swear at you?
No i
Did I swear at you?
No i simply stated my opinion based on your conduct and ability to grasp basic English thus far….
Oh and yes i am being somewhat passive aggressive in my patronising disparaging commentary.. It was my way of checking you were reading what i was typing….
On part two, It’s a joke…..
Think about a nagging wife saying that to her husband….
I apologise. It was silly of me to consider subtle humour was within your skill set. Seriously, explaining things just gets boring.
it appears that the old mantra rings true…
If you’re the smartest person in a room…………….
You’re in the wrong room.
Harry_J wrote:it appears that
You’re certainly in the wrong room 🙂
Harry_J wrote:
Seriously,
No kidding. 🙂
Andy,
Thank you for
Andy,
Thank you for clarifying that, much appreciated.
I agree this thread has run it’s course which is a shame as it actually does debate a very important set of points.
I can understand why at first glance you thought we might not engage but if you dig deeper (which i sense you may have done already) you will find that our ethic is about having fun in safety, driving in appropriate locations and respecting our surroundings.
As I eluded to earlier with my comments about Dunsfold – we are the ‘driving force’ behind a large scale charity event that benefits children with acquired brain trauma – a high percentage of which come from RTA’s so I am very well acquainted with the dangers cars present on the road – I’m one of those that tries to assist those who have suffered from them.
When i say large scale i mean Chris Evans turned up yesterday as he did the year before, last year we had 12,000 people through the gates across 2 days and this year we think it will be more…This morning i am truly shattered.
It’s sad that people can no longer accept things at face value, i’ve not tried to pretend i’m something i’m not or that i am right all the time, but it seems that every opinion voiced needs to be proven before it is even considered, i guess that’s just human nature based on experience in this era…..Andy you said it much better than i did.
I have learnt a lot (as i said a long time ago) I was hoping for a more pleasant debate that focussed on the issues at large instead of focussing my sentence construction but C’est la vie, n’est pas?
Once again Andy thank you for proving to me that i’m not completely nuts about receiving your email ( was starting to wonder for a moment)
To everyone else, please stay safe I wish you well.
And finally, I get to ‘meet’
And finally, I get to ‘meet’ the person speaking for “the majority of the cycling community”. Hi there!
It’s funny how the two of you complain about people being “unpleasant” while at the same time showing the exact kind of behaviour yourselves that you claim to be too mature for. Know what that makes you? Twatwaffles. Of the particularly dumb and full of themselves kind. I’m certainly not above insulting people if I feel that it’s deserved. And, evidently, neither are you – but unlike me, you claim you are when you’re clearly not. That is what I would call “unpleasant”.
It’s jolly nice nice of you, Andy, to finally come forward. Why not earlier though? A lot of the suspicion could have been avoided that way. Especially given the way that Harry here seems incapable of sticking to a specific version of his story, just like he seems incapable of sticking to a specific version of his arguments. First the email address was “false”, then he changed this to “decided not to put the email address it was sent from”. I don’t think anybody here could possibly be blamed for finding his story a tad hard to believe initially and even more so afterwards, until you came along and confirmed at least parts of it.
And Harry, you still haven’t answered the question posed to you, by me and at least two others in this thread, what the heck makes you think that a cyclist who takes all possible precautions, riding defensively and carefully, fully abiding by the rules of the road, is somehow still to blame for being wiped out? You were not particularly coherent in this regard before, maybe you want to try again?
I’m sorry that some comments
I’m sorry that some comments here got into a spiral of rudeness. It really doesn’t help anybody (but it is an ever-present temptation to go that way in these sorts of arguments). And I do think that casting doubts on the story of how Harry_J came to post here was a bit unnecessary (and not relevant to the topic anyway)
But, Harry_J, while polite, has stuck to a totally fixed-position, which is simply incorrect.
Take the following statements:
“there are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists, they all cause accidents, angst and trauma.”
At attempt at equivalence which is just flat-out factually wrong. The bad drivers cause far, far more trauma than the bad cyclists.
” i’m saying cycling is dangerous”
Again, wrong. Cycling isn’t dangerous – its the driving that brings the danger to the situation. Its that old transitive/intransitive distinction again.
” why not learn to co exist with motorists? you will not change the fact they are human so why try?”
This just comes across as patronising, and also misses the point. Almost all cyclists who stay on the roads have had no choice but to ‘learn to co-exist with motorists’, but it doesn’t keep them safe because at least a substantial minority of drivers just won’t learn to co-exist with cyclists. (Incidentally, my experience is that most ‘bad cyclists’ don’t deal with motorists at all, because they stick entirely to the pavements).
And I agree we can’t change the fact of drivers being normal flawed humans, which is why, in my opinion, we need better infrastructure to improve our chances against those humans with weapons (who behave in the way humans always do when they have weapons). Better law enforcement would help as well though.
“cyclists as the vulnerable should take on the mindset that being in the right does not keep you safe. ”
Again – that just comes over as patronising, as everyone here already knows that from experience. Anyone taking up cycling on the roads will learn that very quickly. And again, its why things need to change.
What annoyed me initially was your (Harry_J)’s claim that there’s an equivalence, that ‘bad cyclists’ are exactly equivalent to ‘bad motorists’ in both numbers and effect. A lot of drivers seem to think that and it is just nonsense on stilts.
And as I’ve pointed out as
And as I’ve pointed out as well Fluffy, by far the majority of adult cyclists are drivers also.
Is this thread still open
Is this thread still open after 4 years?
Ashley Hill wrote:
No. No it isn’t.