How would you describe the cyclist’s reaction to this driver’s tirade? Perplexed exasperation? Irritated astonishment?
The clip begins with the cyclist, YouTube user steppenjiff, in the middle of the lane as he passes a dog and its owner on the pavement.
A motorist goes past and when steppenjiff inevitably catches up with him at the next set of lights, the driver is positively enraged that he didn’t arrive at the exact same queue a fraction of a second earlier.
“You’re in t’middle o’t road,” he says.
“No, I’m in the middle of the lane,” replies the cyclist.
“No you’re not. You’re in the middle of a fucking road,” says the driver, getting angrier. “Get over.”
“No.”
“Yes.”
“Why do I have to get over?” asks the cyclist. “Where does it say that in the law? In the Road Traffic Act?”
“Are you not reading your fucking cycling licence?” asks the driver. He then issues a Danny Dyer-esque sign-off “Twat!” as he drives away.
“I don’t need a cycling licence,” says the cyclist in utter confusion. “What are you on about?”
51 thoughts on “Video: Driver enraged by cyclist riding in middle of lane”
It’s scary that these people
It’s scary that these people are allowed to vote. Might explain the shit-show we are currently embroiled in.
Kendalred wrote:
Worse, who gave him his “f*cking driving licence” (Just so he’s aware to what I am referring)
Basic English escapes these morons . . Road, Lane ? Not the same thing.
If the lights hadn’t changed he was JUST ABOUT to complain about the cyclist not having paid his road tax
Kendalred wrote:
Hit the nail on the head, exactly!
I fail to see any positivity for us as cyclists, this is a great example of the sort of moronic attitude that seems to be amplifying at the moment.
RobO wrote:
Poor choice of analogy. – I can probably guess what your agenda is.
If you have evidence of behavior that is Threatening, Intimidating and you are in fear – take that information to the police and ask them to review it under The Public Order Act 1986.
No need for them to find a traffic officer. The law is quite clear. No excuses for ‘Sorry guv I had too much to drink etc etc.’
I am a happily a Motorist, Cyclist, and Pedestrian but being human I do make mistakes.
May I just say Let (she/he/enter your preferred pronoun) who is without sin cast the first stone.
If you make a mistake put your hand up. Get on with trying to make a better place, instead of measuring your entitlement.
Has a go about fictional
Has a go about fictional cycling license, then turns left without indicating
STiG911 wrote:
Indicator was on. Cancels itself as he drives off.
on that road that the driver
on that road that the driver would have had to change to the oncoming lane to safely pass irrespective of the cyclist taking a defensive position because of the off leash dog….no oncoming traffic, no problem and the driver only scrubbed speed to cut back in front of the cyclist to somehow prove what a tricky pass it had been
The rider doesn’t need to
The rider doesn’t need to explain his positioning, he’s entitled to be there, but I suggest the good reason for moving away from the pavement at that point is that he is passing a person and a dog which may not be on a lead. It’s very sensible to allow a bit of extra space.
Did the driver cut in too
Did the driver cut in too soon? Looked like it. And what did the driver say first off “….after me again”?
dassie wrote:
It looked like a deliberate cut in to me, and likewise perplexed about the “….after me again.” comment. Suspect driver may have a slight chip on shoulder.
dassie wrote:
Yup he cut in closely – deliberately – I then raised my arm in a “wtf” motion – you can see him brake when I do – he’s watching me in his rear-view. Then when I catch up he says something like “Raise your hands at me again…”
Angry, stupid, and a shit
Angry, stupid, and a shit driver. The OP should be contacting his local police force and demanding they go and speak to the clueless dangerous bastard about his ignorance of driving laws.
It is simply not possible to
It is simply not possible to tackle that amount of stupid in a roadside chat.
“defensive position because
“defensive position because of the off leash dog”
Rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Yet despite the advice and instruction from the highway code people still walk these cylcist endangering monsters either off lead or on big extending trip wires and rarely get criticised for it
However Joe public continually cricise us on bikes even though we are following the code just no doing what they wish the code days
He’d obviously had a very
He’d obviously had a very very bad day, a clear road and nothing coming the other way, so a clean and easy pass. Either that or fed up with driving a crap car
I think most car drivers so
I think most car drivers so very rarley overtabke anything on a single carraigeway road they have no idea how to do it correclty. The cyclist in this footage was riding very sinsibly and defensivley. The clear road means he didn’t impead the car drivers progress in anyway.
What percentage of drivers
What percentage of drivers will have actually been taught that cyclists may need to ride in the middle of the lane?
Is it even in the driving test at the moment?
Teaching this to cyclists but not drivers seems to be a recipe for conflict and anger.
I don’t have a cycling
I don’t have a cycling license, but I do have a driving license and when I tried reading it, all it told me was my own name and address. Maybe these fictional cycling license things are different.
The driver’s just annoyed the
The driver’s just annoyed the cyclist caught up with him and he’s using any excuse to have a go. Regarding narrow pavements to the side of roads, both drivers and cyclists need to be aware of pedestrians. Both dogs and young children could accidentally step into the road. The cyclist acted exactly as he should have.
I had a tailgating driver who
I had a tailgating driver who overtook me, stopped his car and punched me. Police report filed with Cycliq footage from front and back… his first words when approaching me were “do you think you’re a f*ing car?” (I was primary position in a single lane road due to vehicles parked in bus lane, and keeping pace with traffic, lights on, clear signalling etc..) I would submit footage to close pass, but don’t want to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.
smalltalk80 wrote:
Hope he gets what he deserves. Good luck.
smalltalk80 wrote:
If that’d been me I’d have punched him back much harder and repeatedly. Wouldn’t necessarily be doing myself any favours though.
smalltalk80 wrote:
Illustrates the central weakness of ‘vehicular cycling’. Forester apparently never encountered this guy.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The fault is not in vehicular cycling, it is in the entitled twattery of the driver.
burtthebike wrote:
But the entitled twattery of drivers is a constant and a given. The problem with vehicular cycling is it pretends that doesn’t exist. Cycling ‘as if you were a car’ runs into the problem that too many dirvers react with sentiment this driver expressed above.
I’m not arguing against existing cyclists making the best of it with vehicular cycling techniques, I’m arguing against the cult-like atittude of the likes of Forrester that says vehicular cycling is the one true solution. It just doesn’t work all that well, becaue of the twat-factor. Any proposed solution to anything has to allow for the twat-factor.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
But the entitled twattery of drivers is a constant and a given. The problem with vehicular cycling is it pretends that doesn’t exist. Cycling ‘as if you were a car’ runs into the problem that too many dirvers react with sentiment this driver expressed above.
I’m not arguing against existing cyclists making the best of it with vehicular cycling techniques, I’m arguing against the cult-like atittude of the likes of Forrester that says vehicular cycling is the one true solution. It just doesn’t work all that well, becaue of the twat-factor. Any proposed solution to anything has to allow for the twat-factor.
[/quote]
People, and drivers, can and do change. We need to change the societal assumption that cyclists are not valid road users and merely impede motor vehicles. Accepting that we aren’t proper road users, and that drivers cannot be changed is an admission of defeat.
The safety of cyclists in Holland etc isn’t just due to segregated facilities, it is due to the prevailing societal view that they are proper road users and are treated as such by drivers.
For the avoidance of doubt, I totally support segregated facilities, but we need both them and respect from drivers.
Cycling to work this morning
Cycling to work this morning – taking the lane for a while to prevent close passes due to traffic queue the other way. Doing nothing wrong.
Road widens a bit and I get close-passed by a driver right before a pedestrian refuge, causing him to cut in front of me (fortunately for me, the guy attempting to follow him backed off at last second!).
A bit later, I see same driver stuck in traffic – as I go past, he winds his window down and helpfully shouts that cyclists don’t own the road!
Shame I didn’t have the camera on this morning (no bracket on that bike).
And another one on the way
And another one on the way home…
Road works closed near side lane of short stretch of dual carriageway and footpath, so riding in middle of outside lane, as I should be.
Car behind starts beeping at me to move over, but no idea where they think I should move to.
First opportunity, they come past (using the right turn lane at some lights), with the passenger screaming “you f*****g pr!ck” at me out of the window.
Gave them a cheery wave as I sailed past them stuck in traffic further up the road.
LastBoyScout wrote:
Cyclists do own the roads – they are public roads, paid for by all taxpayers.
I rarely see any point in
I rarely see any point in engaging in a chat with these clowns.
They don’t want to understand.
Driver signs off with
Driver signs off with “fucking twat!”
There is is only one fucking twat in that clip, that’s for sure! My money is on the mouth breathing illiterate behind the wheel…
Just ask them if they know
Just ask them if they know what an ‘acronym’ is. Regardless of the response reply with, ‘There we are then.’
Probably running late on his
Probably running late on his way to be an audience member on [i]Question Time[/i].
My take on this kind of
My take on this kind of behaviour is that something like 90% (common figure bandied about on t’internet) of drivers rate themselves as being better than average. Apparently 1/3 rate themselves as being safer than average whilst texting and using their phones!
Driving around slower moving road users represents a challenge to their preconceptions and exposes shortcomings in their abilities that they do not know they have.
Obviously, being superior drivers, the problem cannot be down to them. QED the other road user must be at fault. You know the type, cannot complete a 5 minute journey to the shops without coming back with reports of “Some idiot…”
Being a superior driver gives a sense of entitlement to “teach” the other road user a lesson.
Easiest lesson, without being brave enough to stop and have a face to face argument is to use your big safe metal box to pass as close as possible in an attempt to persuade the slower road user that their place is to the side of the road, out of the way with all the other debris.
When cornered at the next set of traffic lights / back of the traffic queue that they could of seen if they had been looking further than the end of their front bumper. Then just like feral rats, they can turn a bit defensive and somewhat vicious.
Best course of action is to sail past serenely to the head of the queue (you have been observing properly and anticipating enough time before the lights change / obstruction moves) and carry on as though nothing happened. Never instigate the standoff argument. Like I said above, you have little chance of persuading such a driver that they are wrong.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I think you are referring to the Dunning Kruger effect.
The driver has one advantage
The driver has one advantage over us normal folk; he can invite his wife and his sister out on Valentines night and still only need a table for 2…
Enraged driver following a
Enraged driver following a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane to avoid a potential dog related incident is pretty par for the course.
Why on earth did the cyclist stop in the road for a chat (and possibly present a problem for oncoming traffic)? Either sail past the cars and sit in the bike box at the lights (which appeared to be empty) or pause briefly behind the car.
I understand the rationale behind bike cameras, but sometimes I do wonder if these folk go out seeking to engage with arseholes instead of just ignoring them the way most of us probablt should.
whoishJ wrote:
Why would you ignore them? If you do nothing, they carry on thinking their behaviour is acceptable. If you try to engage them, they might stop and think about it. Or someone they care about may tell them to stop being a twat.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.”
1973 Robert A Heinlein
Mungecrundle wrote:
But annoying gammon is surely every thinking person’s duty.
This reminded me of the harry
This reminded me of the harry and paul song..
https://youtu.be/ud6CdnLqBD0
But annoying the pig whilst
But annoying the pig whilst they sit and fume in traffic is just soo tempting.
Agree with whoishj and munge.
Agree with whoishj and munge… why stop and create an argument?
I’ve noticed more often lately (whilst driving) that cyclists sometimes take the lane very aggressively to try to prevent an overtake.
We should trust in each other and recognise that car drivers want the same as us; a safe pass. In this instance, the driver passed fully on the opposite side of the road, with a clear view ahead. The return to lane is sharp, but let’s be honest, there was no danger to the cyclist here.
FredGTV wrote:
We should trust each other ???
You should get on a bike an experience a few close passes and then wonder why with no oncoming traffic, the car is so close.
If you can’t work out why a cyclist takes the lane, I suggest you start looking beyond the end of the bonnet.
FredGTV wrote:
FredGTV, it’s a very interesting choice of words, and I’ve been pondering on it for a while, how can a cyclist aggresively take a lane? Surely it cannot be aggression towards the road, the road is very big and solid. It cannot be aggression towards the impatient massive lump of metal behind, as taking the lane is by it’s very definition defensive cyling. I tend to take the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking when I am aware of something that the following driver may not be, a blind corner for example (on part of my commute a blind corner on a humpbacked bridge, had a few scares there!), an oncoming vehicle, to be out of the door zone or maybe the lane narrows for traffic calming.
I also think that drivers and cyclists want slightly different things, I would like to get where I am going alive and safe, it would seem that the overtaking motorist often wants just to get to the next queue of traffic a few seconds earlier.
Perhaps it isn’t the defensive cyclist being aggressive, maybe it’s your anger and frustration as a motorist, unable to make use of all of that unneccesary expence, the weight, the power and the size of the motor vehicle. All because your own incredible important journey has been fractionally slowed, and that you could possibly be delayed by mere moments.
FredGTV wrote:
Usually that’s because an overtake at that point would be dangerous.
And the ‘aggressively’ there is transparantly obvious projection (because it makes no sense in any other way). That’s _your_ aggression you are aware of, not the cyclist beaming it to you via some magic psychic communication. You feel entitled to overtake whether it is safe or not – a form of aggression on your part. You then project that feeling onto the cyclist, percieving your own aggression as coming from them.
There’s no need to ride in
There’s no need to ride in the centre of the lane blocking it for cars unless you want to antagonise motorists. If the cyclist rode sensibly instead of hogging the lane then incidents like this wouldn’t happen. They’re both idiots in my opinion
Zazaza wrote:
You bothered registering just to say that?
Did you read any of the rest of this thread? There are perfectly reasonable reasons why someone might be riding further out into the lane.
Go way, read the rest of the comments, and consider your life choices, m’kay?
Zazaza wrote:
You are welcome to your opinon, but if you come to a road cycling website, then hopefully you are looking to be informed. Then you will have an informed opinion.
The cyclist in this clip is perfectly positioned:
1. Note pedestrian with dog on long lead. Leaving as wide a margin as possible is sensible. Entirely foreseable that the dog could have bolted into the road after a squirrel* or something that runs out under its nose.
2. Doesn’t matter where in the lane the cyclist is positioned, any overtaking car will have to use some of the other lane to make a safe pass. So why not use it all?
No competent driver would struggle with that situation. The only drivers who get antagonised by cyclists are those who lack the skills and patience to share the road with slower moving traffic or who live under the delusion that they have more right to use the publicly funded, public highway on account of paying some pollution related taxes due to their lifestyle choice of owning and running a motor vehicle.
*This site does have a rather nasty squirrel infestation..
Mungecrundle wrote:
We can fix that: https://www.theguardian.com/food/shortcuts/2019/feb/04/view-to-a-cull-is-grey-squirrel-the-ultimate-sustainable-meat
Zazaza wrote:
‘rode sensibly’
And this means what exactly?