Our Monday Moaning piece last week entitled ‘Why don’t cyclists us cycle lanes’ prompted one road.cc reader to send in a video for our Near Miss of the Day feature which shows a driver telling him that he should have “used the f*cking bike lane” in London’s Parliament Square.
With the introduction of Cycle Superhighway 3 in 2016, there are protected cycle lanes and early start traffic lights at several of the entrances to the square, but it can often be quicker and easier to take the main carriageway when the lights there are green.
Chris, who shot the footage, which shows him approaching the square from the Millbank direction with the Palace of Westminster to his right, told us: “There is the option to use the bike line, but as the light was red, I chose to use the main traffic lane. The driver then close passed me.
”When I stopped to challenge her, her response was that I should have ‘used the f*cking bike lane’.
“Later she asks: ‘Why do you think we build them?’ And she suggests I am going to get killed cycling in the manner I do.
”People driving cars often use what they perceive to be indiscretions on the road as a justification for road violence.
”My point would be that even if I was obliged to use the bike lane – which I wasn’t – it is no excuse for such behaviour.
“The police issued a notice of intended prosecution but later had to withdraw it because of an “administration error.”
He added: “I think it’s a pretty good layout – I generally feel safe using it.
“The big bike box on the junction to the square is very good.
“I only started commuting that way recently, so I don’t know how it was before.”
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
67 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 316: Parliament Square driver tells cyclist he should have “used the f*cking bike lane””
Typical entitled driver
Typical entitled driver attitude “It’s my road and I’ll force you off it if I don’t like how you ride.”
I wondered why the police at the junction looked so shifty, then he went round the corner; cycle lanes totally blocked by police vehicles. Nice to see they take the safety of cyclists seriously and park considerately. Of course they can’t park in the motor vehicle lanes, that would obstruct real road users. Might be fun to report them for obstruction and try to justify putting vulnerable road users at risk, even if they can give themselves permission to park anywhere.
Have you sent this to the
Have you sent this to the authorities?
If not, why have the camera.
Plasterer's Radio wrote:
The article says
“The police issued a notice of intended prosecution but later had to withdraw it because of an “administration error.”
So I assume there’s not much point sending the footage in now, even if they haven’t already done so.
Wow: that woman really can’t
Wow: that woman really can’t see what was wrong with her driving, can she? She’ll do this again, and has probably done it before, and will not believe that she’s done anything wrong.
(I wonder, is “administrative error” a Met euphemism for “cannot be bothered”?)
brooksby wrote:
Or maybe “the driver in question is well connected”?
brooksby wrote:
I bet they messed up the 14 day limit.
The driver had a point, the
The driver had a point, the cyclist didn’t help matters by using the same sort of cycle lane further along. As cyclists, we need to ‘play the game’ a bit. If I was that driver there, I’d have assumed the cyclist was going to use the cycle bit, and not have been overly impressed that they chose not to. However I wouldn’t have squeezed the cyclist, just braked and let him have some space. Poor riding, poor driving, that’s not a good cocktail. I often ride that bit of Parliament square, I go out of my way to use the cycle bits, it’s not worth the aggro / accident, not to.
Judge dreadful wrote:
Did you read the article? With the explanation of why they weren’t using the cycle lane at that point?
You know cycle lanes are not actually compulsory? Use them if they make your life easier, according to the HC.
Why should it, as it seems to be, only the cyclists who are expected to play the game??
Judge dreadful wrote:
The first bit is just a filter to put cyclists into the advanced area. The second bit is an actual segregated cycle lane
Then you should be well aware that the first bit is not a ‘cycle lane’ but actually a pisspoor bit of infra design because it puts cyclists on the far left when most would need to cut across the 4 lanes to get to the seg section that directs over westminster bridge or further round Parliament sq.
Shes a shit driver who is a bully and a liability.
The main lights had already
The main lights had already changed from green, at least to amber, by the time both car and cyclist went through – both too distracted by their own rightousness to bother noticing the lights.
The car is visible holding station just off the cyclist’s rear quarter from quite early on, deliberately not squeezing past, doubltless expecting to get by at the separated cycle lane through the lights. The cyclist then moves out into her path (to avoid the inconvenience of a red light) just when she would have been expecting to safely overtake. It does not excuse her then squeezing by regardless, but I certainly have no sympathy for the cyclist and can understand how this sort of behaviour winds motorist up.
Sriracha wrote:
”this sort of behaviour”. What, cycling in a manner which he is perfectly entitled to do? So the driver makes an assumption (about him using a cycle lane up ahead), then finds he doesn’t, so instead of abiding by the rules of the road and showing courtesy to other road users by staying behind or giving more room (such as the recommended 1.5m) she DECIDES to squeeze the cyclist towards the kerb, all so that she can get round the corner and join the queue at the next red lights. She does this as a form of punishment because she feels she has more rights to the bit of road that the cyclist was occupying.
So perhaps motorists would get less ‘wound up’ if they weren’t in such a rush (just to get to the next set of red lights 50yds ahead), obeyed the Highway Code and showed a little more respect to vulnerable road users. Did you ever think of it that way round rather than believing that the cyclist was in some way at fault just because the driver didn’t like him being ‘there’ when she wanted to be?
PP
Sriracha wrote:
The cyclist holds their line and the ‘driver’ makes an assumption about the cyclist’s direction. But instead of using the brakes decided that squeezing the cyclist was the better option.
Sriracha wrote:
You need to learn the law, cyclist has priority as they were in front, end of story, presuming another road user is going to do x is why motorists (and indeed cyclists) crash into other road users and stationary objects like trees, walls, ditches and come off at bends etc etc
I’m just back from a quick
I’m just back from a quick trip to see friends in London yesterday. I walked from Seymour Street around Mayfair last night, then from Seymour Street to Kings Cross last night and this morning. A few cyclists out and about, and one very near miss – driver with tunnel vision. Seeing the entitled attitude of many drivers, and the frustration and horn beeping if a green light was not actioned within Fighter pilot reaction times just put me off riding there. I am so glad I live in the Sticks.. You London cyclists are a brave bunch..
If I’d been cycling on the
If I’d been cycling on the right of the rider, I’d probably have assumed that he would use the cycle lane, though his road positioning didn’t suggest he was going to pull over, so I’d have held back a bit and muttered in a very British fashion… I wouldn’t have overtaken on the approach like the motorist did, not with traffic and lights ahead.
Some crap parking by the police.
Perhaps the cyclist should
Perhaps the cyclist should have swung his dlock at her head and if she protested said it wouldn’t have happened if she had been using a motorway, so it’s her own fault really.
Housecathst wrote:
And then watch at the resources and time the police put into finding the assailant and charging them with attempted murder. And the newspaper column inches devoted to it. Maybe a Channel 5 programme as well with the tearful victim (honest, hard-working, tax-paying motorist) explaining how terrified she was at the unprovoked actions of the assailant (criminal, tax-dodging, cyclist scourge).
Bet there wouldn’t be any “administrative errors” then would there? It would be fast-tracked to the courts before the first edition of the Daily Mail was even off the press.
My reading of this is that
My reading of this is that the driver was intimidating from the start of the clip, at that point there was no cycle lane and they seemed to be alongside the rider.
EK Spinner wrote:
Agree.
As he was intending to move into the rightmost lane at the next set of lights it doesn’t make sense to move into the leftmost lane before the turn. I wouldn’t do that either in a car or on a bike, and definitely not when an entitled, aggressive moron is trying to bully me because she thinks bikes shouldn’t go in the ‘car lane’.
“We pay for the roads”.
“We pay for the roads”.
No love, that would be tax payers and I bet the majority of middle aged male cyclists pay somewhat more tax than you do.
hirsute wrote:
Oh! Cos she’s a woman she can’t hold down a very highly paid job which necessitates her paying loads of tax?
And you call her “love”
Well Done You!
Nemesis wrote:
Oh! Cos she’s a woman she can’t hold down a very highly paid job which necessitates her paying loads of tax?
And you call her “love”
Well Done You!— hirsute
She had a crap car.
If you look up any pay stats, the differential in pay is clear.
The statement was clearly one of probablity since the word ‘bet’ was used.
Besides which, if it were a bloke in the car, the answer would have been the same except to substitute dickhead.
hirsute wrote:
Oh! Cos she’s a woman she can’t hold down a very highly paid job which necessitates her paying loads of tax?
And you call her “love”
Well Done You!
— Nemesis She had a crap car. If you look up any pay stats, the differential in pay is clear. The statement was clearly one of probably since the word ‘bet’ was used. Besides which, if it were a bloke in the car, the answer would have been the same except to substitute dickhead.— hirsute
Yeah.
Cos that’s a crap car (what’s wrong with a VW Polo anyway?) and well off people always drive nice cars.
But that’s OK.
Let’s just leave it that you’re ALWAYS in the right and everyone else (me in this case) is always in the wrong.
Nemesis wrote:
I made a few statements based on probability which you can test out if you like. I did not make a claim that certain people always drive a type of car.
hirsute wrote:
Oh! Cos she’s a woman she can’t hold down a very highly paid job which necessitates her paying loads of tax?
And you call her “love”
Well Done You!
— Nemesis She had a crap car. If you look up any pay stats, the differential in pay is clear. The statement was clearly one of probably since the word ‘bet’ was used. Besides which, if it were a bloke in the car, the answer would have been the same except to substitute dickhead.— hirsute
Yeah.
Cos that’s a crap car (what’s wrong with a VW Polo anyway?) and well off people always drive nice cars.
But that’s OK.
Let’s just leave it that you’re ALWAYS in the right and everyone else (me in this case) is always in the wrong.
— Nemesis I made a few statements based on probability which you can test out if you like. I did not make a claim that certain people always drive a type of car.— hirsute
As I said…. Let’s just leave it that you’re ALWAYS in the right and everyone else (me in this case) is always in the wrong.
Nemesis wrote:
Oh! Cos she’s a woman she can’t hold down a very highly paid job which necessitates her paying loads of tax?
And you call her “love”
Well Done You!— hirsute
You have hirsute bang to rights on the ‘love’. That was taking a dive off of the moral high-ground and thus a bad idea.
But on the tax point he’s probably got statistics on his side. I suspect on average middle-aged male cyclists do pay more tax than someone in a car like that. And she’s the one who bought tax into it with the ‘that we pay for’ stuff.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It was a prejorative term like dickhead.
hirsute wrote:
A sexist pejorative term, though. If a crap driver were black I doubt you’d use a racially-specific disparagement. Getting off the topic though – which seems to be that some people think that if nobody can claim to be morally-perfect, then all rules of civilised-behaviour can be disregarded entirely.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You sound like my wife !
I think it would be sexist if I didn’t give a similar label to males.
As to paying for the roads, unless the cyclist has somehow no expenditure and earns less than 10k, then they are making a contribution to the roads via some form of taxation.
I used to love watching this
I used to love watching this in London. One Dick argues with another Dick.
Usually it was buses and cyclists – call me old fashioned but I would give 2 tons of metal a bit more respect or scoot off down the bike lane. History is littered with the mangled remains of people who stood ‘on principle’ Just sayin’….
Nemesis wrote:
And the cyclist is a dick because ?
Or do you think he should have bunny hopped over the raised divider once the ‘driver’ tried the squeeze them out ?
hirsute wrote:
I used to love watching this in London. One Dick argues with another Dick.
Usually it was buses and cyclists – call me old fashioned but I would give 2 tons of metal a bit more respect or scoot off down the bike lane. History is littered with the mangled remains of people who stood ‘on principle’ Just sayin’….
— hirsute And the cyclist is a dick because ? Or do you think he should have bunny hopped over the raised divider once the ‘driver’ tried the squeeze them out ?— Nemesis
Point taken. The bike lane is crap it just funnels the cyclists back into the traffic – not good.
Ok
IMO I would use the cycle lane and wait for the light there because doing what you did is a red rag to a bull. Then if I decided not to use the cycle lane (I do that sometimes) I wouldn’t come over all pompous when someone got a bit close. Police parked in the cycle lane . I’m guessing the large number are due to a demo and thats what its like cycling in a city. They are doing something expedient. Exactly the same as Mr Pompous choosing not use the cycle lane.
nicmason wrote:
Maybe it’d be safer if we didn’t allow the “bulls” to drive if they can’t control themselves in a civilised fashion.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re pissing in the wind expecting others to have no human failings. The car waited to overtake at a safe place. The cyclist stymied their opportunity, and all just to get through a light on amber instead of red. Yes, the driver should then have had further reserves of patience, and it’s not right to end up endangering a vulnerable road user – even if they showed you no consideration. Maybe if cyclists always met the high standard you expect of others there would be less conflict. It’s a shared road space, and it does not hurt to share, especially when there is extra provision made for cylists to help with the sharing.
Sriracha wrote:
Maybe it’d be safer if we didn’t allow the “bulls” to drive if they can’t control themselves in a civilised fashion.
— hawkinspeter You’re pissing in the wind expecting others to have no human failings. The car waited to overtake at a safe place. The cyclist stymied their opportunity, and all just to get through a light on amber instead of red. Yes, the driver should then have had further reserves of patience, and it’s not right to end up endangering a vulnerable road user – even if they showed you no consideration. Maybe if cyclists always met the high standard you expect of others there would be less conflict. It’s a shared road space, and it does not hurt to share, especially when there is extra provision made for cylists to help with the sharing.— nicmason
Human failings are to be expected, but there’s no need or benefit in having an aggressive attitude whilst driving or operating heavy machinery. Personally, I try to not be aggressive whilst cycling, but I find it difficult when close-passed or otherwise endangered – the fight-or-flight instinct tends to kick in (c.f. Alan 1 – 0 Wind Mirror) but I just don’t see how motorists are subject to the same fear of collisions.
Sriracha wrote:
Were you watching a different video to the rest of us?
I don’t see much evidence of sharing by the driver of the car. There was intimidation from the start of the video, as already stated. She would have found considerably more patience if it had been a police motorbike or another car in front, especially if it was a Merc with blacked out windows and some big fellas with tattoos inside.
No, she was bullying the cyclist and became abuse because he stayed in the lane instead of moving left as she wanted him to get out of her way.
I am aware that in these discussion some people can too readily jump to the cyclist’s defence but many of your posts appear to show a driver-centric view of behaviour on the road with too little thought about what it may be like for someone on a bicycle. The vast majority of us drive a car too so are not merely ‘cyclists’ and all of us are pedestrians. This video is typical of the shockingly entitled attitude exhibited by a significant number of people when they’re in a vehicle.
Simon E wrote:
Were you watching a different video to the rest of us?
I don’t see much evidence of sharing by the driver of the car. There was intimidation from the start of the video, as already stated. She would have found considerably more patience if it had been a police motorbike or another car in front, especially if it was a Merc with blacked out windows and some big fellas with tattoos inside.
No, she was bullying the cyclist and became abuse because he stayed in the lane instead of moving left as she wanted him to get out of her way.
I am aware that in these discussion some people can too readily jump to the cyclist’s defence but many of your posts appear to show a driver-centric view of behaviour on the road with too little thought about what it may be like for someone on a bicycle. The vast majority of us drive a car too so are not merely ‘cyclists’ and all of us are pedestrians. This video is typical of the shockingly entitled attitude exhibited by a significant number of people when they’re in a vehicle.
— Sriracha As it happens, I was watching the same video. It’s the construction put on the same observations that differs.
I observered that the driver held back from overtaking the cyclist from nearly the start of the video until the lights. Others characterise this as “aggression” by the driver. But the same video.
I observed that the cyclist had a choice, use the cycle lane and inconvenience himself due to the red light, or expect the driver to be gracious about having to continue patiently behind the cyclist. It was a simple choice, inconvenience himself, or inconvenience the motorist. He chose the latter, and such was his disinclination to stop at lights that he continued through the light that had been at amber already a while.
I have never defended or justified the motorist for ultimately endangering the cyclist.
Do you mean expect the driver to follow the rules of the road? Gracious doesn’t come into it.
Nope, his choice was to ride his bike according to the highway code, the motorist was more inconvenienced by the cars at the following red light. Did she attack or endanger them?
Sriracha wrote:
The driver was almost alongside when the clip started.
As has been pointed out multiple times, the cyclist was intending to move out to the OUTSIDE LANE. He appears to be using the correct lane for his intended manoeuvre.
Why should he move in the opposite direction, into the narrow cycle path for traffic that is mainly for traffic turning left at the next lights? He would then have to immediately leave that lane and cross 2 more lanes while pulling away from the lights. I am at a loss to imagine what kind of idiot thinks that is a good idea.
Your use of the term “gracious” indicates your bias. The driver did not want to remain behind the cyclist full stop, even though she gained absolutely no advantage by squeezing past. Cyclists shouldn’t have to rely on graciousness or preferential/deferential treatment from other road users when maintaining or changing lanes; they deserve respect as fellow road users. The driver simply failed to demonstrate respect for another road user.
As for the amber light, perhaps if I was being bullied by a driver I might inadvertently do that. I can’t say for sure and would prefer not to find out.
Simon E wrote:
The driver was almost alongside when the clip started.
[b]As has been pointed out multiple times, the cyclist was intending to move out to the OUTSIDE LANE[/b]. He appears to be using the correct lane for his intended manoeuvre.
Why should he move in the opposite direction, into the narrow cycle path for traffic that is mainly for traffic turning left at the next lights? He would then have to immediately leave that lane and cross 2 more lanes while pulling away from the lights. I am at a loss to imagine what kind of idiot thinks that is a good idea.
Your use of the term “gracious” indicates your bias. The driver did not want to remain behind the cyclist full stop, even though she gained absolutely no advantage by squeezing past. Cyclists shouldn’t have to rely on graciousness or preferential/deferential treatment from other road users when maintaining or changing lanes; they deserve respect as fellow road users. The driver simply failed to demonstrate respect for another road user.
As for the amber light, perhaps if I was being bullied by a driver I might inadvertently do that. I can’t say for sure and would prefer not to find out.— Sriracha
The cyclist does not say that. He says, “There is the option to use the bike line, but as the light was red, I chose to use the main traffic lane.”
Sriracha wrote:
I read that as “It didn’t make my journey easier or safer since the light was red, so I chose to use the main traffic lane”. Which the HC said you could do, last time I checked.
Sriracha wrote:
Does a tractor have to expect the drivers behind them to be gracious? Or a horse-ist?
I thought that if a road user is in front of you, then they’re in front of you. End of.
hawkinspeter wrote:
So in all your driving and cycling you are a tolerant individual never finding anything annoying and never reacting in any manner. I find that unbelievable TBH.
nicmason wrote:
I’ve never got around to learning to drive, so I haven’t had to test my tolerance whilst stuck in traffic jams, luckily.
I do make an effort to not react as I used to get a bit shouty with motorists cutting me up/close-passing/overtaking then blocking my path etc. Getting older helps a bit, but I found having a camera to be a major asset in not feeling the need to retaliate. If someone acts like an ass, then I can sit back a bit and think to myself “got you on camera – that’s going to the police”. A lot of the time, reviewing the footage reveals the incident to be less serious than it felt at the time, so I can just shrug and feel glad that I didn’t react.
nicmason wrote:
Your response makes no sense to me. Do you justify stabbings or just someone waving a knife at someone in the same way? “Hey, we’ve all reacted to things, what’s the problem with the zombie-knife wielder?”
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
So in all your driving and cycling you are a tolerant individual never finding anything annoying and never reacting in any manner. I find that unbelievable TBH.
— hawkinspeter Your response makes no sense to me. Do you justify stabbings or just someone waving a knife at someone in the same way? “Hey, we’ve all reacted to things, what’s the problem with the zombie-knife wielder?”— nicmason
Ludicrous exaggeration. Do you think that someone driving quite close (but slowly) is the same thing as a knife weilding zombie ?
I recommend a long period of getting out more.
nicmason wrote:
Someone driving a car “quite close (but slowly)” to a cyclist could still KSI them, I think…
brooksby wrote:
I can’t rememebr the exact new item, but a small van driver approached a cyclist waiting ahead at a junction, scoped them onto the bonnet, then did a rapid stop which dumped the cyclist straight onto their head. They died of their injuries, although it was low speed.
nicmason wrote:
Did you actually think about what you wrote there?
hirsute wrote:
Yes I did. Thanks for asking.
nicmason wrote:
We have bulls on the road and the answer is that other road users should avoid them? Not instead do something about the bulls?
From watching the clip, the
From watching the clip, the driver had a very bad attitude towards cyclists in general.
Trying to squeeze out the cyclist with the camera when he never used the bike lane was bad enough, but when she was stopped at the traffic lights, there was a full empty lane between the cyclist and the lane she was in, yet coming round the corner, she cut into the lane next to the cyclist (right beside another cyclist) before moving back to the original lane she was in.
Unortunately it is back to the whole thing of entitlement that some drivers believe they have the right to bully other people off the road.
And the thing that really pisses me off is the fact that after all of her dangerous driving she got to the same position that she would have gotten to had she stayed behind the cyclist and driven in a safe manner.
I see the same kind of attitude frequently during my commute at one particular pinch point, where I regularly get cars making close passes on a 200m stretch of road, all so that they can get to the the back of a queue of traffic. And I then cycle down the bus/cycle lane and pass the cars that passed me dangerously a few seconds before.
Also, my starting point in
Also, my starting point in such things is that it’s quite likely that the motorist didn’t need to be using a car there at all. They created all the problems by choosing to drive in central London, and there’s a high probability it wasn’t essential for them to do so.
Some crazies on here trying
Some crazies on here trying to blame the cyclist for doing nothing wrong…
What I saw was a dangerous driver attempting a nearly-overtake on a cyclist that wanted to move out so they could get in the right-hand lane, then for good measure they tried to force the cyclist into the cycle lane (on the left!). Instead of owning up to their dangerous driving they then decide they should verbally abuse a vulnerable road user that they just willfully endangered. Mind-boggling failure of cognitive ability and yet they are driving a killing mahcine with apparent impunity.
Good to see the under-resourced police were all out in force doing nothing other than making the roads
safermore dangerous for cyclists. Fairy bored of seeing 50 yawning police officers on Vauxhall bridge while people are getting killed just a couple of miles away 🙁I’m hoping on my commute home
I’m hoping on my commute home tonight that all cars queing at the roundabout pull onto the grass verge so I can go thru because I’m quicker, then all cars on the roundabout give way, if there’s a headwind I’d love a transit to sit at 18mph so I can tuck in behind.
Gracious innit!
Not knowing the road layout,
Not knowing the road layout, does the cycle lane light on the left change before the main road traffic (like some bus filter lanes) allowing cyclists to move from the left to the cycle lane on the right? Or is it just for cyclists going left?
Regardless of this. If the driver wasn’t by the side of the cyclist in the single carriage way then he could have moved safetly to the right before the lights (as it seems the two cyclists behind him did).
No mitigating factor, but I’d like to think I wouldn’t stop in the middle of the road to have an argument. As someone mentioned, you have a camera, send the video to the police and hope that they don’t have an “administrative error”. Shes not going to have an epithany in that situation.
That potty mouthed old hag is
That potty mouthed old hag is someone’s mother/grandmother. I bet she makes them proud.
Cyclist seems like a self
Cyclist seems like a self entitled twonk… Car driver seems like a self entitled twonk… Good luck to you both I say… If it all ends in tears maybe it’ll take that before you learn to adapt your riding and driving to a busy urban environment… And use the cycle lane, or slow down and cross behind the car, oh no wait, that’ll cost you 3 seconds. Zzzzz.
50kcommute wrote:
That is a very simplistic and disingenuous view. The cyclist correctly believed he was entitled to use the road perfectly legally without being endangered. The driver believed she was perfectly entitled to endanger a vulnerable road user for using the road in a perfectly legal manner which irritated her. Can you see the subtle distinction between the legal behaviour and the criminal behaviour?
I can’t help noticing that the trolls have infested the road.cc comments section.
Fifth Gear wrote:
That is a very simplistic and disingenuous view. The cyclist correctly believed he was entitled to use the road perfectly legally without being endangered. The driver believed she was perfectly entitled to endanger a vulnerable road user for using the road in a perfectly legal manner which irritated her. Can you see the subtle distinction between the legal behaviour and the criminal behaviour?
I can’t help noticing that the trolls have infested the road.cc comments section.— 50kcommute
Seems to me that, in these comments sections, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the cyclists right/car drivers wrong in every situation is, by default, labelled as a troll – as I was last week.
Not a huge amount different to the motor vehicle lobby who blame cyclists for everything and conveniently forget all the driving offences they commit and people they kill.
Incidentally, in the space of a 1/2 mile walk this evening I had 3 people on bikes ride about 6″ away from me – I was on the footpath. During that walk I had no problems with car drivers. Awkward.
Nemesis wrote:
Seems to me you constantly engage in straw-man arguments and see only what you want to see.
What’s so ‘awkward’ about your anecdote? It’s irrelevant nonsense. I get passed by annoying pavement-racers occasionally. It doesn’t bother me nearly as much as all those thousand of cars constantly threatening my safety and getting in my way even as a pedestrian. If you are claiming the two are equivalent problems you are delusional.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Whats irrelevant about it? You’ve just proved my argument. Because it doesn’t bother you then it shouldn’t bother me? And literally “thousands” of cars “constantly” “threaten” you. Really? Thousands of them and constantly? There’s your straw man then. Thanks for calling me delusional by the way – not sure why your making this personal….
Nemesis wrote:
No cars parked on the footway or too close to junctions or crossings, then?
brooksby wrote:
Sorry to disappoint. Nope. Nothing whatsoever. It was just the 3 people on bikes who pissed me off. As I said – awkward….
Nemesis wrote:
Not disappointed: pleased, that there are still some places like that
Nemesis wrote:
Couldn’t agree more.. I’m not trolling and I understand the reality of the cyclists and drivers situation – I’ve cycled in central London for about 15 years… The reality, unfortunate or not, is that I think its best to adopt a simplistic view on the road…its a squeezed urban environment, you have to yield sometimes even when you don’t want to or shouldn’t have to… Some people in life are twonks and unfortunately they won’t change… So do us all a favour, stay safe and chill out on the bike.. It’s worked for me 🙂