Our story yesterday about a driver in Liverpool kicking a cyclist after making a close pass on the rider got plenty of attention, and today in our Near Miss of the Day series we have a similarly aggressive motorist.
Luckily in this incident, the cyclist who had shouted at the driver who had just made a very close pass on him was able to take evasive action when the motorist stopped a little further up the road.
Getting out of his car, the driver – who has an object in his right hand – appeared to be set on confronting the rider, who anticipated what seemed about to happen and was able to get out of harm’s way.
The incident happened on Alexander Parade, Denniestoun in the east end of Glasgow.
The road.cc reader who filmed it at around 8.30am on Monday morning told us: “ I thought the guy was going to attack me … I had to swerve to avoid him.”
> 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 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.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
168 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 649: Driver makes close pass on cyclist – then gets out of car to confront rider”
Reminiscent of my experience
Reminiscent of my experience last week when a van driver was less than a foot from me as I was recovering speed after a local steep hill, about 5 metres from a bike lane. He only needed to ease off for a couple of seconds to let the oncoming car pass, or wait 10 seconds for me to get into the bike lane.
I knew I would catch him in the slow High Street, and sure enough, I spent the next few minutes being present in his mirrors, held up by him and his fellow motorists.
As he took the right turn lane, I went straight on, and shouted “Where did that get you?” That was enough for him to change his mind, chase me and cut me off. I was able to duck out and get around and I guessed he would try and attack me. Fortunately no oncoming traffic so I sprinted across the road and had too much speed for his push to take me off, but he made contact. Fortunately, he didn’t chase me further.
One day I’ll learn just to put up with assault with a deadly weapon.
Has there been a nmotd on
Has there been a nmotd on this road before, as it looks familiar.
I know people get bored of me
I know people get bored of me saying the same thing over and over again, and accuse me of “victim blaming”, but honestly that would all have been avoided by just being courteous. Yes the driver was in the wrong for close passing, but people just need to take a deep breath, suck it up, and report it to the police when they get home.
I was pondering how I can control my emotions much better than the population at large, and it’s really just down understanding the consequences of your actions, like this:
Now you understand the trigger doesn’t ever produce a good outcome, you can set about changing your habitual behaviour. Habits tend to be very difficult to break through active, conscious decisions as they tend to be performed through the primitive part of the brain that acts unconsciously. So you need to practice mindfulness when you the trigger approaches, and rewire your brain over time to break out of this destructive pattern and form a new – calmer – habit in its place.
yes you are victim blaming.
yes you are victim blaming.
It’s perfectly reason to exclaim your displeasure – it’s no different to cars sounding their horn except use of the horn may be illegal in some circumstances whereas shouting wouldn’t be.
Someone on here once
Someone on here once suggested that I ‘smile and wave’. So I went through a phase of doing just that. At least two drivers got very irate and I thought they were going to confront me.
I once, out of habit, did it on a group ride. One of my mates asked me if I knew the driver. I said I didn’t recognise him but assumed that only someone I knew well would invade my personal space like that ?
Nigel Garage wrote:
Possibly for the first time ever, I entirely agree with you. In just the last week or so on here you have demonstrated that you are a fat-shaming racist bully, something you do from the comfort of your keyboard (hiding behind an anonymous username, of course); decent people tend to regard that as somewhat more heinous than swearing at someone, in the heat of the moment, who has just risked their life through their selfishness and/or stupidity.
This you? https://twitter.com
This you? https://twitter.com/Rendel_Harris/status/1331498040331538432
These people are scary, it seems they’ve been bottling up their hate for decades and suddenly feel licensed to spew it all out at once because some people have suggested a bit of politeness and courtesy would be nice.
Wow, stalking me Nige? Fair
Wow, stalking me Nige? Crikey, a comment from a year ago as well, how obsessive is that, do you keep files on me? Fair enough, you can do that when people are honest enough to use their own names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms. In the instance you have found, I was talking about those foul individuals who spill their disgusting bile in cold blood on t’internet (I trust you recognise yourself), not somebody who swears in the heat of the moment at someone who’s just almost killed them by skimming them by two inches at 50mph.
Rendel Harris wrote:
…
Nigel posted on this thread
Nigel posted on this thread for only one reason, a distraction from the obviously unacceptable behaviour of a motorist.
He is not worth a response.
‘Stop your bile’, says the
‘Stop your obsessive bile’, says the man who regularly spouts obsessive bile.
There’s a logic there, somewhere, I’m sure, but I’m jiggered if I can find it.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Evidence of that please, Tory boy? I don’t mean evidence of me disagreeing with cycle-hating car worshippers, or fat-shaming, or casual racism, as per our Nige, but an actual example that could be claimed as obsessive bile.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And lest we forget, Rendel also posted the follow quote:
“No attempt at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”
Good quote, isn’t it –
Good quote, isn’t it – obviously to a Tory, the party that tried tooth and nail to stop the foundation of the NHS, a quote from its founder will always be hard to take.
There is a substantive difference between despising a political party and its affiliates who stand for greed, selfishness and division and whose policies and incompetence over the last decade have caused many thousands of needless deaths and poverty and suffering for millions and hating people, as you do, Nigel, because they ride bicycles, or because they are overweight, or because of the colour of their skin.
Well you asked for something
Well you asked for something you wrote that could cause offence, and I stated something you wrote that did cause offence.
Rather than take the opportunity to apologise, you doubled down on the remark, which is rooted in the anti-semitism of the 1930s and 40s. Describing others as “vermin”, “cockroaches”, etc is straight from the National Socialist playbook.
So rather than the childish response “but you called a 5′ 5″ man short!”, or “but you said fat people could benefit from going on a diet!”, both of which are factually correct, perhaps you could do the right thing and reflect on your words and apologise.
Nigel, you keep trotting out
Nigel, you keep trotting out the same old rhetoric that somehow the reaction of the cyclist is to blame for this incident not the close pass. Go figure.
I’ve asked this question of you a couple of times when you have rolled out the “the cyclist shouldn’t have reacted” speech and you conveniently ignore me.
So Nigel I will ask it again. Have you never reacted to ANY form of sudden shock that you have had in your life?
I know that you will either ignore it again or you will make up some excuse that you have never reacted to anything in your life.
I haven’t responded to you
I haven’t responded to you because the answer to your question is self-evident. Of course I’ve reacted to sudden shock at points in my life, I’m a human being.
I have also got angry at being close-passed by a car, but it became clear to me very quickly that it’s a futile and self-destructive emotion in the circumstance, and I’ve learned to control my emotions better.
Nigel Garage wrote:
So lets see if I understand you. When a cyclist reacts to a sudden shock you infer that this instincive response an angry response. So holding you to your own standards you must be angry when you respond to a sudden shock?
If the rider had continued on shouting at the driver in question then I would have agreed with you but they did not. In fact their own actions showed that they were not looking for conflict. If they were angry, as you hypothesise, surely they would have not shied away from the conflict that they created.
But feel free to keep trying to put your own little spin on things as if you automatically hold the moral high ground because you have “learned to control your emotions better.”
On a point of order, Nye did
On a point of order, Nye did not describe Tories as vermin. He described them as “lower than vermin.”
Well done for the introduction of Godwin’s law, of course the dedicated socialist who established the National Health Service was a Nazi, that makes perfect sense. Getting a bit desperate there.
If you were not a fat-shaming racist bully, who actually thinks it’s funny to mock other people’s physical appearance and to try to establish links between their racial characteristics and their political beliefs, I most certainly would apologise for calling you one, but as you are I fail to see any requirement to do so.
Nigel Garage wrote:
Really? So Swift, Walpole, Luther and others – they all got it from the Nazis? I’m surprised – if they had time travel, why didn’t they make use of it to go back and change things so that they won the war?
Hate is hate Rendel.
Hate is hate Rendel.
Hating people who you consider yourself morally superior to is the most dangerous form of all.
Some of the worst crimes in human history have been carried out for political reasons by people with exactly the same attitude as you.
That sounds very lofty, Rich,
That sounds very lofty, Rich, until you actually consider what you’re saying. As you, like your sidekick Nigel (with apologies for comparing you to him as you do actually have a brain and try to make an argument), see fit to introduce Godwin’s law, let’s just think about it: do you not consider yourself morally superior to the Nazis, or Stalin, or Pol Pot? Do you not hate them for their crimes? If not why not? If you do, then your assumption of moral smugness completely dissolves.
When Stalin’s acolytes were
When Stalin’s acolytes were rounding up tens of millions to be sent to the gulags and suffer horrific deaths what were they thinking?
Did they ‘despise’ those with different politics to them?
Did they seek to dehumanise their victims by referring to them as ’vermin’?
Ask the same question of Pol Pot’s followers or even those who committed political murders during the Spanish Civil war.
If we want to avoid repeating history we have to learn from it.
The worst crimes against humanity have not been carried out by monsters but ordinary people who, in certain specific circumstances, become capable of awful crimes.
Take your personality type, your sense of moral superiority, your hatred for those who think differently from you and your willingness to dehumanise those people, place it in Soviet era Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.
In those circumstances are you a perpetrator of a crime against humanity?
I would argue that your attributes make that very likely.
I hate the crimes committed but when I think of the people who carried them out they are usually ordinary people just like me.
Instead of considering myself superior I try to understand what made them commit such crimes? What drove them to such extremes?
Why were they so full of hatred?
Your desperate attempt to
Your desperate attempt to portray me as a potential war criminal because I despise the party you support is beneath contempt and not worth answering; what is very interesting is that I asked you if you despised the Nazis or Stalin or Pol Pot, and you replied in detail relating to Stalin and Pol Pot, throwing in additional references to the Spanish Civil War, and yet didn’t mention the Nazis at all. Subconscious no doubt, and highly revealing.
Incorrect as usual Rendel.
Incorrect as usual Rendel.
I said I hated ‘the crimes committed’ that encompassed all the crimes by the regimes you mentioned.
The reason I did not go into detail about the Nazis was because I was never referring to the Nazis in my previous posts.
I was discussing crimes that were politically motivated, as you are surely aware the Nazi’s crimes were primarily driven by racism/antisemitism/ablism/homophobia etc and therefore not applicable to my argument.
The worst crimes in history were carried out by ordinary people just like you and me. In the right circumstances some of us will willingly commit atrocities.
If you are already prone to dehumanising your opponents and are already motivated by hatred then you are far more likely to become a perpetrator.
Try and reflect on that.
To precis: when extremists on
To precis: when extremists on the left commit crimes against humanity, it’s because they’re on the left; when extremists on the right do the same, it has nothing to do with their politics. The Nazis weren’t politically motivated? What a very revealing perspective. Totally erroneous of course, but highly revealing.
Do you understand the meaning
Do you understand the meaning of the word ‘primarily’ Rendel?
I’m sure you do which means you’re deliberately misconstruing my argument in a desperate attempt to avoid addressing my actual point.
In a vain attempt to derail
In a vain attempt to derail this fruitful political debate into a timewaste about something involving bicycles it does appear Nazism correlates with bike theft:
https://dutchreview.com/culture/how-the-netherlands-became-a-cycling-country/#h-blitzkrieg-against-bicycles-nazi-bike-theft
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-history-second-world-war/how-hitler-decided-to-launch-the-largest-bike-theft-in-denmarks-history/1438738
It’s quite unbelievable that
It’s quite unbelievable that he finds it acceptable to speak about others in this way, simply because they have a different political opinion to him.
This kind of hate speech isn’t confined to National Socialism by the way, it’s also been used by the Americans to intern Japanese people during WW2, by the far right to describe refugees, and notably in the Rwandan genocide (https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/587041/).
Given the attacks on Conservatives recently, including the brutal murder of a respected politician, it really is deeply disappointing to read this abuse.
Nigel Garage wrote:
It’s quite unbelievable that you find it acceptable to speak about others in the way you do simply because they’re a different race or body shape to you, and yet you do.
I wondered how long it would be before Sir David’s tragic murder was dragged out for political point scoring; it was fairly obvious it would be you who would do it. Desperately cheap.
I was really hoping that
I was really hoping that recent events would lead to a change in attitude for many on these pages as it, apparently, has for Angela Rayner.
It appears that was overly optimistic on my part.
Interesting, but not
Interesting, but not surprising, that you don’t classify the Nazis as far right. Also weird that you are denouncing negative descriptions of refugees. This is a welcome development in your progression towards the caring person that you sometimes claim you’d wish to be.
markieteeee wrote:
One wonders how his alleged opposition to negativity and hatred sits with his oft-stated belief that President Trump was “the greatest president in world history.”
markieteeee wrote:
Heading to the right is the more socially acceptable way because a) it’s done very well throughout history b) well we’re not german c) at least they made the trains run on time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
markieteeee wrote:
I didn’t classify National Socialism because I wasn’t writing a post on political history. As you did note, however, I made it clear that this kind of rhetoric has been used by political extremists from the far right and left historically, and is abhorrent regardless of who uses it.
I was addressing Rendel’s dehumanisation of Tories as “lower than vermin”, something which he has doubled down on and re-asserted. As someone with similar leanings to Rendel, where do you stand on this?
Yes, you classified them by
Yes, you classified them by making it clear that as well as the Nazis, the sort of hate mentioned wasn’t only them, it was also used by the far right:
This kind of hate speech isn’t confined to National Socialism by the way, it’s also been used by the Americans to intern Japanese people during WW2, by the far right to describe refugees, and notably in the Rwandan genocide.
There are left extemists from history you could have chosen but you didn’t. You specifically chose the nazis as your example as being other than the far right. Claiming the nazis were not far right, or even right-wing would be laughable if not for the fact that it’s used by modern day alt-right, far-right, racist, fascist and holocaust-denying groups to play down the hate politics of the right or just to provoke the left into a reaction.
You’re in very nasty company if you try to make this claim. Anyone coming on here to defend this, would be showing themselves up too.
National Socialism’s position
National Socialism’s position on the political spectrum is controversial, as Rich has pointed out, especially in the early days of the party. I don’t really feel qualified in history to speak with authority on this, but what I will say is that for some people it’s politically expedient to push anti-semitism and racism as a “far right” problem, when in reality it tends to cut across a large swathe of the political spectrum (just look at Corbyn’s Labour party for example). In my view you can see shades of National Socialism in the actions of today’s Chinese Communist Party: the treatment of the Uighur minority, nationalism and militarism, suppression and killing of political opponents, suppression of workers’ rights, the list goes on.
By contrast, in today’s liberal democracies it tends to be the preserve of only the far right to scapegoat refugees as the cause of societal woes, although on reflection even that is perhaps an oversimplification.
Can’t help noticing you swerved the question about Rendel’s insistance that Tories are “lower than vermin” by the way. Presumably you’d like to take this opportunity to disown this?
National Socialism’s position
National Socialism’s position on the political spectrum is controversial, as Rich has pointed out.
It’s really not.
But Nigel wow. I’m loving your gradual conversion to anti-racism, supporting all of these minorities around the world. Even if it’s just a disingenuous way of attacking others and even if you are reticent about condeming the Nazis, keep reading about these struggles, you will learn something. If you want any further reading there are many anti-racist organisations who can help.
NB Why would anyone want me to disown a different poster quoting a context specific quote from 1948, not raised in this thread? Whether it’s an attempt at obfuscation or because you know your slightly more intellectual friend will wade in because it’s Rendel, it’s not working well for you as a tactic.
markieteeee wrote:
To be fair it’s a common point of contention.
How do you classify right and left?
Rich_cb wrote:
Interesting, but not surprising, that you don’t classify the Nazis as far right.— Rich_cb To be fair it’s a common point of contention. How do you classify right and left?— markieteeee
I’ve got it written on my shoes if that works for you?
Which shoe are the Nazis in?
Which shoe are the Nazis in?
Rich_cb wrote:
The jackboot.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I tried that, but I could never work out which foot went in which.
mdavidford wrote:
Use the Cinderella method. If that still doesn’t help check this post, or you might have someone else’s shoes.
chrisonatrike wrote:
That’ll be it. Someone told me to walk a mile in them, but it just hurt my feet and made me cross with the world.
mdavidford wrote:
“Before getting into a fight with someone always remember that saying. Try to follow it – if you can you’ll be a mile from them and have their shoes.” – various comedians.
Rich_cb wrote:
Interesting, but not surprising, that you don’t classify the Nazis as far right.— Rich_cb To be fair it’s a common point of contention. How do you classify right and left?— markieteeee
It really isn’t, the only people who contend it are conservatives desperate to disown the extremes of their side – great intellectuals such as Candace Owens and so on. One of the primary raisons d’être of the Nazi party from its inception was to fight “Jewish Bolshevism”, to claim there’s something equivocal or debateable about classifying the Nazis as far-right is risible.
How do you define right or
How do you define right or left wing then Rendel?
There’s a good article about the motivations of the Nazi party here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html
It’s not quite as straightforward as you’d like it to be.
Funnily enough I knew George
Funnily enough I knew George Watson (the author you quote) personally, he was my father’s English tutor at Cambridge. A nice old boy and excellent literary critic but a shaky historian who became somewhat obsessed with forging a link between Hitler and Marx in his dotage, his primary thesis being based around a mistranslation of the word “Völkerabfälle”. You can learn more about this on George’s Wikipedia entry, if you’re interested.
Hitler and the Nazis suppressed trade unions, banned the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party and executed thousands of their members – in fact the very first Nazi concentration camp, at Dachau, was built to house not Jews but communists and socialists.
The idea that Hitler was not right wing and even somehow left wing is absurd and has been roudly debunked by numerous renowned historians, for example Sir Richard Evans (Regius Professor of History at Cambridge, 2008-2014): “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism” and Sir Ian Kershaw, generally regarded as one of the world’s greatest experts on Nazi history and Hitler: “Hitler was never a socialist.”
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article? Your argument makes it appear that you did not and have just lifted some quotes from Wikipedia.
The argument that the Nazis were socialists does not rely on any mistranslation. That relates to the argument that Socialists promoted genocide.
You often attack authors of pieces but never seem to critique the actual articles themselves.
The article has multiple primary sources indicating that many Nazis did see themselves as Socialists.
You also didn’t answer my question, What is your definition of right and left wing?
Rich_cb wrote:
https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
How do you define right and
How do you define right and left wing then?
Rich_cb wrote:
Depends where you are sitting.
But it has nothing to do with whether the Nazis were socialists; they were not.
I’ve never asserted that they
I’ve never asserted that they were Socialists.
I’ve pointed out that they are difficult to place on the right-left axis.
Everybody seems certain that they were right wing yet nobody seems able to define what that actually means.
Rich_cb wrote:
Right-wing politics supports the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics, or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.
From the wiki article. Which describes the Nazi party.
As opposed to: Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition of social hierarchy. Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
Which does not.
They obviously believed there
They obviously believed there were hierarchies between races but the interesting thing is to look at their policies for the ‘Aryan’ people.
Here the picture becomes less clear, from the Snopes link:
“its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital”
The planned economy, large state and limits on personal freedoms were also more typically left wing.
It’s almost like left wing policies for the ‘Aryan’ people inside a bubble of extreme nationalism.
It’s partly why I think the terms right and left wing are too simplistic for complex political structures.
A proponent of a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state maybe be described as very right wing yet share absolutely no beliefs with an extreme nationalist who is also described in the same way.
No Rich. Cherry picking one
No Rich. Cherry picking one sentence out of context does not justify your arguement.
The same article also states:
“In lieu of the socialist ideal of an egalitarian, worker-run state, the National Socialists erected a party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature.”
Which fits the previous definition of right wing perfectly. Your idea that “Aryan” people were treated according to left wing ideals as I defined is also obviously flawed; trade unions were outlawed and socialists, communists, the disabled and homosexuals were all sent to concentration camps despite belonging to .
Your assertion that the proponent of a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state and the extreme nationalist do not share right wings ideals is also incorrect – both are supporting the view that hierachial social structures are natural/desirable as I defined.
Firstly I said that it was
Firstly I said that it was too simplistic as it would lead to people with completely incompatible beliefs being given the same label.
I stand by that.
Secondly the sentence I ‘cherry picked’ was directly related to the definition of left wing that you had just given me.
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to demonstrate that the exact terms used to describe left wing activity in your link were used to describe aspects of Nazi rule in another of your links.
How would you describe the organisation of Soviet Russia?
A party-run police state whose governing structure was anti-democratic, rigidly hierarchical, and militaristic in nature?
Right wing Communists?
I have given you a definition
I have given you a definition that is widely accepted. Just because it does not fit with your internal concept of left and right wing (which is what exactly?) is your problem not mine.
And the beliefs are consistent – they are to do with social hierarchy and inequality
You cherry picked the statement because it states the RHETORIC was egalitarian. The article goes on to state that the reality was the opposite as you know.
I am not sure why you want to believe that the Nazi party were not right wing. Shrugs. I hope it makes you happy.
Again you are misrepresenting
Again you are misrepresenting what I have said.
I’ve stated, repeatedly, that the terms are too simplistic as entirely different political philosophies will be given the same label.
Personally I prefer to think in terms of big state/small state and liberal/authoritarian. Combined to give 4 categories.
Under that definition the two examples I gave would be at opposite ends of the spectrum which seems far more appropriate.
The reality of the Soviet Union was not egalitarian, doesn’t make them right wing Communists.
I’m trying to demonstrate that the nomenclature is not fit for purpose.
Many of the examples used to demonstrate that the Nazis were not socialists could be applied to the Communists. This renders the argument a bit laughable really and reinforces my point that the terms are almost meaningless.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think we’d understand better if there was a chart (or several…) that could illustrate this idea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Edit: don’t know anything about these folks but you can see where you lie on a 2 axis scheme here:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
That second.one is more what
That second.one is more what I was getting at but with big state/small state instead of right/left.
Apparently I’m Right/Libertarian.
Thought the quiz was nonsense
Thought the quiz was nonsense in terms of defining right/left but just to show I had a go here’s my chart
Bloody Communist.
Bloody Communist.
Someone plotted on some
Someone plotted on some famous and historical figures – take a look at this one for example – https://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart?Stalin=-8.0%2C8.0&Gandhi=-7.0%2C-3.0&Donald+Trump=2.0%2C-1.0&Barack+Obama=1.0%2C2.0&Hitler=1.0%2C9.0&+Jeremy+Corbyn=-9.25%2C-1.21&Rendel+Harris=-9.38%2C9.38&Rich_cb=2.75%2C-2.88&Nigel+Garage=-0.5%2C-1.5
Wow, you actually went all
Wow, you actually went all the way through a six-page questionnaire putting in pretend answers from me? How staggeringly sad is that? How empty is your life to actually waste your time doing that? Along with your stalking my Twitter account I think this really indicates you need some serious help.
Now now Comrade Rendel.
Now now Comrade Rendel.
I’m sure he didn’t mean it, please don’t send him to the gulags.
I wouldn’t, I did despise him
I wouldn’t, I did despise him but now I deeply pity him, he clearly needs help. He has literally filled in a six-page questionnaire with fake answers in my name in order to produce an idiotic result that nobody apart from himself could give a flying fuck about, that is so very, very sad.
Sorry to burst your bubble
Sorry to burst your bubble that there’s some odd guy stalking you, but you can just stick figures in the URL – just takes a couple of seconds.
Your reaction to this little joke does seem to validate your positioning though! Here you are, I’ll just move you a bit across…
Oh, so you didn’t post a link
Oh, so you didn’t post a link from my Twitter account yesterday? I think you should inform the relevant admin then, as there’s a weird stalker who needs to get a life who’s posting stupid things under your username. Is that why you’ve changed your username at least five times, to get away from him?
Turns out I’m to the right of
Turns out I’m to the right of Trump, and Hitler definitely was right wing.
So informative.
After exensive analysis and
After exensive analysis and doing the quiz dozens of times I have been able to compile a version of this chart which may interest road.cc readers. I apologise for the absence of most types of bicycle but I believe these would be spread over the chart area so clarity would be lost.
To save space I have moved the fixie to an artificially low position on the libertarian axis. For those who don’t recognise the bike at the upper mid-left is of course a Flying Pigeon.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I do love this. You are of course correct that cycling is inherently left wing, and car driving is right wing.
Helmets are authoritarian though.
I think the majority of
I think the majority of people on bicycles are … all over the chart. The majority of self-defined “cyclists” (e.g. people reading here) are probably on the lower half (libertarian / cussed individualists).
The car is actually one of the queen’s.
But I’ll stand by my fixie comment (in the modern era…) until someone can show that e.g. China is engaging in espionage to steal the secrets of alleycat-running messengers and their fans. (Lucas Brunelle is so odd that I have no idea nor interest on where he’d fit on the left / right axis).
Fixies do not chart on your
Fixies do not chart on your graph because the Z hipster axis is lacking…
Yet car drivers are all
Yet car drivers are all limited by law to driving no faster than the same maximum speed on any given road regardless of the cars top speed.
Egalitarian?
Cyclists can go as fast as their ability allows them. Ganna on Brompton would undoubtedly be faster than most of us on a Bolide.
Hierarchical?
Rich_cb wrote:
I think I know what you meant but I think this can be misconstrued. I know people who think that the speed limit is the compulsory speed for the road – they would agree that they are “required by law to drive their vehicles” at that speed.
Now edited for clarity.
Now edited for clarity.
Yes but Chairman Mao bikes
Yes but Chairman Mao bikes are very left wing!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/marr-is-snubbed-for-a-day-at-church-9ds5783n35h
How come you haven’t included
How come you haven’t included a lefty?
Rich_cb wrote:
No, you asked for definitions of left and right wing. I gave them and explained why they mean the Nazis are right wing.
I’m sorry it upsets you that fiscal conservatism with a low tax, free market economy with a minimal state and an extreme fascist nationalism share the same philosophical underpinning – that inequality exists among individuals and this is correct and should not be rectified – but it is true.
It doesn’t really upset me
It doesn’t really upset me per se. It just seems wholly inadequate.
The idea that one race is naturally superior to another and the idea that hard work should reap rewards don’t really seem like equivalent philosophies.
Especially given that in one scenario your status is fixed at birth and in the other it’s entirely decided by your own ability and work ethic.
Rich_cb wrote:
Both philosophies are predicated on the concept that inequality is a good thing.
As an aside, both race and ability have genetic components, no? Why is is not good to discriminate against people based on their race but it is good to discriminate against them based on ability?
I think that’s fairly self
I think that’s fairly self explanatory.
You can’t change your race (whatever race actually means) but you can change your ability.
Outside of some niche professions hard work and practice are what begets success with genetics playing a very minor role if any.
Rich_cb wrote:
I disagree. I think intelligence and therefore educational attainment have a strong genetic component for instance, the same as manual dexterity. Plus the family and environment you are born in to also has a profound effect on life chances and again these are things you cannot control.
stomec wrote:
Intelligence and educational achievements are surely highly affected by the environment and the wealth of the supporting family. Also, probably largely affected by environmental pollutants such as cake frosting: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/toxic-frosting-children-poisoned-with-lead-copper-from-cake-decorations/
Very much so. An interesting
Very much so. An interesting take on it is Michael J Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit. Well worth a read.
Strangely the view that
Strangely the view that intelligence is genetic is highly controversial.
Personally I think it’s environment and opportunity more than anything.
Rich_cb wrote:
Not least because we don’t really have a good definition of what intelligence is to start with – attempts to define and test for it tend to encode the biases of those defining them to look for some idealised version of ‘people like me’, which starts to beg the question as regards inheritance.
Quite a big assumption hidden there that intelligence is what determines educational attainment. For starters, other factors, such as access to information, stable home life, access to quiet spaces, whether your parents read to you in early years, etc., etc., have significant demonstrable effects on outcomes. But even with all those being equal, it’s dubious whether ability to perform well in academic tests is the same thing as intelligence.
stomec]
Whoa, eugenicist in the house! I think the Bell Curve is well off-limits for this forum.
Rich_cb wrote:
Ah – but even those ideas blend somewhat (with the possible exception of a few regimes like the Nazi one where the majority were absolutist about race – in the Third Reich if you were a jew only one destiny awaited). Even in societies with some kind of fixed rank-based inequality (which is most) there are areas of fluidity, or certain times or situations where that no longer rigidly applies. On the ability and work ethic side there’s an increasing number of studies which suggest that “accidents of birth” (both genetic and the social status of your relatives) may have the major effect on various measurable scores for health, “achievement” etc.
But being a libra you’d expect me to say that.
PS for reference
PS for reference
https://youtu.be/rWvpvlT9pJU
To be fair that is an
To be fair that is an absolute classic.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is why I hang around here and not on e.g. on BikeRadar – for content you don’t get on other bike sites. A considered evaluation of the policies of the Third Reich – simultaneously critiquing a “simplistic” “left” / “right” categorisation while overall concluding that they were implementing “left wing policies”.
As was rightly said, this is obviously not the place to be discussing this sort of thing.
It should go in the reviews section.
I read it when it was
I read it when it was originally published in the Independent, as it happens – as I mentioned I knew George personally (though not well) and always made a point of looking out for his work. I’ve also read the work of the two far more reputable historians I quoted (as I mentioned, George was an English specialist, not a trained historian) and watched The Nazis: A Warning from History for which Sir Ian was historical consultant, all of which made it clear that any allegations that the Nazis were somehow socialist is risible. I also commend to your attention Alan Bullock’s majestic Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; although it’s many years since I read it I clearly recall that he stated that any reference made by Hitler and the Nazis to socialism in their early years was solely opportunistic and intended to capitalize on the popularity of socialism amongst certain sectors of the German population, and that they never had any genuine ideological committment to socialism. However, if the best you can do in the face of such solid evidence from world-renowned experts is to wail “You haven’t read it, you got that off Wikipedia!” I see little point in continuing the debate, so I shall bid you good day.
If you’re so familiar with
If you’re so familiar with the article then why didn’t you reference a single point from it in your reply.
You’ve instead relied on an ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.
Your complete refusal to define right and left wing also speaks volumes.
Most modern ‘right wing’ beliefs such as a small state, a free market economy and respect for individual freedoms (eg freedom of speech) couldn’t be more different to the government of the Nazis.
How can they both be right wing?
were While it’s always “more
While it’s always “more complex than that” I doubt that any *summary* of Hitler and his movement needs to spend too long on the “socialist” bit because the more power he gained the less socialist this looked. If you’re into history the start is interesting though (see Beefsteak Nazi and National Socialist Program). Not that surprising though that in the (eventual) mass movement the burgeoning factions held a broad range of views. I imagine you’d find some non-uniformity even at a Trump rally or on a cycling forum! There were a notable range of opinions at the start of the Russian revolution of 1917 too – many of whom would later find their support for what turned out to be the winning side rewarded with prison and / or death.
It’s almost like one of the tasks any would-be ruler / ruling faction faces is persuading enough of the population that said ruler(s) will best serve their particular interests. At least until they’ve consolidated enough power to start dictating.
The socialist angle seems to
The socialist angle seems to have become a distraction.
I’m more interested in where they are placed on a right-left axis and why?
Rich_cb wrote:
As opposed to the other 100ish comments?
I quite enjoy it when these
I quite enjoy it when these discussions go completely off piste.
Rich_cb wrote:
That is obvious!
I don’t know if you and Rendel could live without each other now.
I think of myself as the
I think of myself as the occasional third wheel in Rendel and Nige’s partnership.
Rich_cb wrote:
Does that make you trisexual?
I don’t run or swim thank you
I don’t run or swim thank you very much.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s okay, there’s no judgements here (well, maybe a few judgements about politics, helmets and roadcraft)
(Try not to thing about it
(Try not to think about it don’t picture it don’t picture it)
Hahahaha!
Hahahaha!
I think Nige should be the Captain, need someone courteous and polite upfront.
Sniffer wrote:
That is obvious!
I don’t know if you and Rendel could live without each other now.— Rich_cb
Shipped, most definitely.
I think there might be someone else who is eaten up with jealousy for Rendel’s affections though. Actually, that might explain a lot….
Rich_cb wrote:
What about when they get stuck on the nursery slopes?
Just shout “Sadiq Khan’s
Just shout “Sadiq Khan’s Brexit Helmet!”.
Should get things progressing nicely.
I should worry Rendel, Racist
I should worry Rendel, Racist Boo who suggests cyclists should be punched by ex-professional boxers, agrees with another poster who suggested a cyclist coming into a farmyard to have a word wouldn’t have walked back out again, and even seemed to indicate a fellow Tory in Andrew Gilligan deserved to be knocked off his bike deliberately because he supported LTN’s, is now looking into all your tweets. And Flintshire is again supporting this as well. Like lots of his instant support of Boo and strangely, someone who once wrote he would be shagging 14 year old pupils if he was a teacher, he might want to look into the persons actions before throwing the instant support.
I suppose you could always ask Boo what was the racism that got him banned before as well.
Weirdly, his misquote of you could just as easily be applied to some of the recent drivers as well. I mean
“These people are scary, it seems they’ve been bottling up their hate for decades and suddenly feel licensed to spew it all out at once because some people have suggested they shouldn’t attempt to kill me because of my choice of travel.”
Your right if the driver had
Your right if the driver had been courteous and waited patiently behind the cyclist until it was safe to overtake then it all would have been avoided and the driver would have probably have got to his destination quicker.
That is also true. However,
That is also true. However, you can only control what you can control.
As James Allen wrote, ‘A man has to learn that he cannot command things, but that he can command himself; that he cannot coerce the wills of others, but that he can mold and master his own will: and things serve him who serves Truth; people seek guidance of him who is master of himself.”
“Yes the driver was in the
“Yes the driver was in the wrong for close passing, but people just need to take a deep breath, suck it up, and report it to the police when they get home.”
1. This is what I do but I don’t think any action would be taken by the police for the close pass. In this incident though they may take action for the drivers actions after the close pass so may be I’m wrong to keep quiet.
2. Unless the police start doing something about these close passes it may not be a question of “when they get home” but “if they get home”
3. Was this reported to the police?
It would be nice if the
It would be nice if the addage ‘revenge is a dish best served cold’ was true and we all went home reported these incidents in their thousands and all the drivers were sent FPNs or even went on courses. We would then see positive results as angry entitled drivers changed their behaviour or were removed from the roads. Unfortunately, their is no evidence that this will happen. So forgive us if our frustration can get the better of us.
Maybe you should change your
Maybe you should change your name to Nigel Ghandi? Clearly you’re far superior to the rest of us when it comes to controlling your emotions in the face of hateful, aggressive and life-threatening behaviour.
I’m sorry if I might shout an expletive or two when a two tonne killing machine comes within inches of turning me into road kill, and preventing my loved ones from ever seeing me again.
Are you really that clueless?
HollisJ wrote:
I do believe that Nigel thinks that all cyclists are angry MAMIL’s just looking for an excuse to vent their anger at motorists who risk injuring or killing them with their motorised weapons.
He has repeatedly shown an inability to separate a relfexive reaction and emotions. He sees any form of reaction by a cyclist as an angry reaction and nothing will change that perspective.
No, it is just their MO to
No, it is just their MO to wind up posters.
They caught me out on the same point when they changed their username to TTDanger (one of 5 username changes) and I thought I was responding to an infrequent poster.
Yes HollisJ he is that
Yes HollisJ he is that clueless. Always blames cyclists for these things, makes up points to score against others and then confronted by people like you who have suffered, might offer a mealy mouthed apology whilst also doubling down on his lies. The last victim he accused of calling the driver a fucking twat (the cyclist actually said what the fuck) as the driver got close enough to knock him off his bike. When victim posted on here to point out it didn’t happen, instead of offering a full unconditional apology for using him in his games, he decided to weasal out of it with “I’ve heard it said before in these videos”.
But as even his mum hates him enough to send him anti-cycling material, I think he really just has a self-loathing that he has turned against most of the cyclists on here to try to win her love back. Hence him dropping deliberate antagonising items in these threads to show her later.
Please explain why you think
Nigel Garage. Please explain why you think cyclists should be corteous but have no issue with drivers who lack basic decency.
Nigel Garage wrote:
One exclamation is not scream and shot like a seven year old.
meanwhile
trigger – criticism of driving
behavour – physical attack or threat of physical attack
consequence – nothing apparently, because drivers, Nigel and apparently the police believe we should just tolerate tis behaviour from drivers.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Exactly this. Nigel’s default position is that the cyclist must doff their cap to their motoring overlord as any form of reaction means that they are angry.
I wonder what Nigel’s response would be in this situation….
“A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in excalmation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian”
So Nigel what do you say to the above scenario? But I’m guessing he will ignore it
TriTaxMan wrote:
I’ll say what I’ve already said. You can only control what you can control. As a cyclist, you can only control your own behaviour on the bike, you cannot compel others to behave differently, whether they are pedestrians or drivers. That said, I do believe that projecting kindness and compassion spills over into others’ behaviour.
In the case above, if I was the cyclist and had startled the pedestrian, I would apologise and be on my way. If I didn’t feel that the pedestrian’s actions were warranted, I would simply continue on my journey and not engage them.
If roles were reversed and I was a pedestrian who had been closely overtaken by a cyclist, there is an issue in law. Because cyclists are not compelled to identify themselves through registration, you cannot get justice when they behave contrary to the law, hence the reason why top lawyers such as Nick Freeman advocate for a “tabard” system to overcome this issue. I would therefore be far more likely to speak out to the cyclist, to let them know that their behaviour was dangerous, although I would weigh up the seriousness of the incident before doing so.
Nigel Garage wrote:
How’s that going for you here? Looks to me like either that claim is baloney, or you’re not as kind and compassionate as you like to make out. Or possibly both.
Nigel Garage wrote:
I never asked what you would do if you were in the same situation.
So I will ask the question again….. this time try not and give the politicians answer.
In this situation
“A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in excalmation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian”
I want to know your viewpoint as an obeserver of those events not what you would do if you were either the cyclist or the pedestrian, in exactly the same way that you gave your opinion about the reactions of the cyclist and the driver in the video.
But I will provide your previous responses as a guide
Trigger: being close passed by a
motoristcyclistBehaviour: scream and shout like an overgrown 7 year old
Result: nothing good; a potentially dangerous assault at worst.
I hope you are not going to try and give a different response…. because anything other than that will expose your hypocrisy
This only works if you put
This only works if you put yourself as the subject of the trigger. You can’t “observe” it in the way you’re suggesting as a third party.
So as the pedestrian:
Trigger: being close passed by a cyclist
Behaviour: scream and shout like an overgrown 7 year old
Result: unclear; would depend on the physical attributes of the participants, but unlikely to be positive
Nigel Garage wrote:
So I think I understand your viewpoint.
In any situation where someone puts your life in danger you just have to accept it, you are not allowed even to react in shock because if you do you will be to blame for any subsequent reactions from the perpetrator
No, I didn’t say that. I said
No, I didn’t say that. I said that the rule of law is there for redress. I even stated how Nick Freeman had suggested a tabard system for cyclists to address the legal vacuum around cyclist identification, although I believe (to answer your other post) that would be disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem.
We don’t live in some kind of anachist/vigilante mob justice world.
Nigel Garage wrote:
So the rule of law is there for redress? Lets look at the video, the driver of the vehicle breaks two laws, the cyclist none but you still try to pin blame onto the cyclist.
I assume you agree that the close pass was contrary to road laws?
And I would argue that the driver is also guilty of affray which is ” the use or threat of unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.”
As for the cyclist you might want to look at the Public Order Act 1986 which can be summarised as follows :-
Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:
Therefore it is clear for all to see that the cyclist in question did none of those.
Edit
It has repeatedly been shown that the rule of law in terms of redress for close passes is woefully inadequate. Even in cases where the driving is downright dangerous. And you repeatedly weigh in on NMOTD saying that there is not enough evidence from video recordings to prove an offence. You repeatedly try to pin blame for a close pass on the behaviour of a cyclist or try and say that you would take preemtive action to avoid these situations.
Out of question if you are such a good cyclist and you are able to avoid all conflict on the road why are you investing in a camera?
Nigel Garage wrote:
Somewhat ironic, given your previous support for drivers who assault cyclists with whom they have differences.
Nigel Garage wrote:
So do you also advocate for a “tabard” system for all individuals so that they can be easily identified?
I mean it’s not like a driver of a Range Rover Sport got out of their car and assaulted a cyclist, not withstanding the Number Plate on their vehicle, and the police were unable to trace the individual within 6 months to presecute the assault…….. Oh wait that’s exactly what happened.
With that persons individual tabard they would have been easily identified. No?
Trigger: read something you
Now you understand that some people just come on the internet for a knockabout you can set about changing your habitual behaviour. Try “smile and wave”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
touche
although if they are generally misinformed, then informing them may have merit.
But also, if we consider this is not just about educating the misleading poster but the general level of information on the internet.
i.e. People post about Covid not existing, or vaccines being useless. Clearly no amount of reasoned argument is going to change the minds of these conspiracy theorists, but if no counter view is provided then the undecided may be swayed by the one sided narrative they are viewing.
Probably not relevant in this case, due to the nature of the poster and the audience.
Hmmm… quite a bit to unpack
Hmmm… quite a bit to unpack here so please bare with me.
1) You actually make reference to the route cause that can lead people to react to a fearful situation. However I’m not sure you take fully into account that everyone personal experiences are different, its easy to say I would have done this, etc. but unless you are that person in that situation with their experiences you can’t know you would have acted differently. Which leads me to wonder if you have been hit by a car before? Not wishing it on anyone, just might be something to consider in others experiences if you haven’t.
2) Speaking of experience many of the things you advocate can only come with experience as you yourself have attested. I think its good we share that experience, it can help others – it why I watch videos like this, to gain experience on what to look out for so I can stay safer on the roads. However I say that with some apprehension, as just because I am that way inclined – it shouldn’t count against someone who isn’t or doesn’t have the experience to behave as not legally required but you see fit in a certain scenario.
3) Onto the arguement itself, not reacting being better. This assumes you know the long term outcome of this behaviour. I won’t argue short term for the individual there may be obvious benefits that are easy to identify, but there is a thin line between this and enabling. I feel its too complex to try and say one is better than the other – if you can argue its expected for drivers to behave poorly then is even easier to argue that its expected for vulnerable road users to react to this. Calling said vulnerable road user an overgrown 7 year old is a weak arguement all round – especially if you’re going to call out other for similarly poorly formed arguments.
4) Many on here, yourself included based on what you have disclosed, have experienced poor road behaviour from motorists which has compromised our saftey. Focus on what we can do differently in such situations can be a bit of a double edged sword – on the one hand it can’t give people the knowledge to get themselves out of trouble in a dangerous situation – and this shouldn’t be underestimated. It can also be – and I have seen it done enough to be concerned – used in to try and blame people for others failings, shifting blame towards an outgroup so that the ingroup can rest easier. So care should be taken when addressing such topics. I myself am concerned that if the worst should happen, how many excuses will be given the the person who kills me to absolve them of their responsibility?
5) Looking back across history, I am struggling to see of an example that ended well when a vulnerable “out” group was submisive to dangerous individuals from an “in” group. It is important that we recognise this as “in” and “out” groups because despite the fact that may of us also belong to the same “in” group – is lost on those dangerous individuals – and that isn’t even entirely their fault – they are just acting on their own experiences and the narative even more dangerous individuals feed them through the media. I guess what I’m trying to say is we’ve seen similar scenarios in the past – maybe not in terms of scale – but as a cyclist there are interested parties dehumanising you for your choices. Submitting hasn’t generally worked – and I get that spouting on a forum doesn’t achieve a great deal – but each person here has friends and relatives whose stance may be softened slightly. When I first started cycling my parents weren’t happy because they didn’t think it was safe – they had a point, I’ve been hit 3 times. But they have also made the point of telling me they drive more carefully around cyclists now, at the time my kneejerk (internal) response was “thats great I managed to walk down the street the other day with stabbing someone”. When I am less frustrated with the crap position we find ourselves in I can appreciate that my choices have helped make the roads safer for other cyclists. My opinion on this is that this is a better way of improving road safety – and can only be achieved if we can encourage more to cycle. I fear focusing on what a cyclist can do differently only serves to make cycling look dangerous and puts people off.
Thats my opinion atleast, maybe you can find something useful in it.
Thanks for that considered
Thanks for that considered reply, and I agree with much of what you’ve written.
I think where we disagree is on being “submissive”. I’m not saying “roll on your back and put your legs in the air”, I’m saying get home and submit the video to the police. If they don’t do anything, escalate. The UK has a strong legal system; use it to your advantage.
As you mention, getting more people cycling is the best way to break down barriers and increase safety. Acting in an angry manner and amplifying danger will not increase participation, but will put people off cycling. In contrast, calmly explaining to others how to behave, and acting as a role model will help to boost cycling’s image and broaden its appeal generally.
Erm, no – putting sustainable
Erm, no – putting sustainable travel first over car journeys and making the roads safe for all types of cyclist to use, along with removing individuals who put vulnerable road users at risk, will encourage people to cycle.
Do you run cameras Nigel? Do
Do you run cameras Nigel? Do you have any footage of other road users being dangerous that you have submitted to a police force? If so, how did it go?
No, I don’t have a camera. I
No, I don’t have a camera. I’m going to get one though, waiting for Black Friday.
I will have to buy an expensive one – I ride so fast that a cheap camera will just record a blur… you can look forward to some Garage NMOTD action coming soon!
Nigel Garage wrote:
I look forward to you capturing the misdeeds of all those nefarious cyclists and pedestrians out there (and horsists? Is Essex is horsey or is it more pony and trap?).
“He’s as fast as three fast men!”
Doing the same myself
Doing the same myself actually. I’ve finally caved and decided to get one, as annoyed as that makes me I’m trying to justify it as I switched insurance providers this year and saved a substancial amount and am using that saving to buy camera which will do a similar job. Opting for a Cycliq as I subscribe to the notion that having lights running increasing others awareness of me and helps prevent confrontation with those that are suseptable to making honest mistakes.
It just makes me really sad that its got to the point where I feel its necessary, doesn’t fill me with much hope that things will improve.
Yes Cycliq have a Black
Yes Cycliq have a Black Friday sale coming up I believe -https://cycliq.com/blackflyday/. No idea if the prices will be any good but I ain’t buying now just in case!
Thanks – already signed up,
Thanks – already signed up, as was previously waiting for the Fly12 to come back in stock since mid-june. Fortunately the Black Friday marketing came out just before they restocked. Imagine many are doing likewise now, hopefully there is sufficient stock that people who can afford and want a camera are able to get one. Even better is the discounts enable more people who want one to be able to afford it. I am likely going to end up getting a dashcam for the soon as well.
That puts a lot of onus on
That puts a lot of onus on the vulnerable to arm themselves with expensive equipment to record such incidents – this shouldn’t be a barrier to entry.
Take your point that a cyclist swearing at a car/motorist, doesn’t look good on for those observing. There are 2 issues there though, first that is in large part because we’ve allowed the social narrative to be “oh look at the angry cyclist” as opposed to the “something has scared them, i hope their ok”. Second, if we think – and I agree with you on this – that it is difficult without outside enforcement/coersion to improve arrogant behaviour in some motorists, I don’t see any more success being found trying to alter the fearful behaviour exhibited by some cyclists.
Given the state of things in the UK its often helpful to look further afield at countries that have better road safety records. I’m not aware of one, so please let me know if there is, but can’t see an example of where road safety for all road users has improved 1) by requiring higher standards by the vulnerable than those that can do harm, or 2) by telling the vulnerable to keep quiet when they’re scared.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I’ve never found any good at all comes from yelling at drivers in confrontations. It just ruins my ride and makes me feel all wound up, and I cant imagine it would ever change a driver’s behaviour.
What’s more, a bully (which deliberate close passers most likely are) thrive on a reaction. Nothing makes their day more. Better to take a deep breath and look utterly unmoved.
As this incident proves, if you shout and scream you need to be ready for a physical confrontation. And as a 65kg 48 yr old wearing lycra and SPDs, it probably wouldn’t end well for me!
PRSboy wrote:
If you agree with Nigel perhaps you will answer the same question that I asked him.
In this situation
“A cyclist on a shared use path close passes a pedestrian, the pedestrian shouts in exclamation as the cyclists passes, the cyclist stops their bicycle and goes back to remonstrate with the pedestrian”
I want to know your viewpoint as an obeserver of those events not what you would do if you were either the cyclist or the pedestrian.
Would you jump to the defense of the cyclist, saying that had the pedestrian simply ignored the dangerous maneuver and kept quiet that the cyclist wouldn’t have had an excuse to try and pick a fight with the pedestrian? Or would you side with the pedestrian given the fact that the dangerous maneuver of the close pass was the thing that precipitated the pedestrians reaction?
TriTaxMan wrote:
The blame clearly lies with the cyclist for passing the pedestrian in a manner that worried them sufficiently to shout out. So I would side with the pedestrian.
However, if the confrontation ended up with the cyclist hurting the pedestrian in a fight then it would be a pyrrhic victory.
I wasn’t criticising the reaction, but rather saying that if we react like that (and I do, but am trying not to!) then we need to be ready to respond if the driver pulls over and gets out for a fight. Or if they don’t, spend the next 5 minutes feeling all wound up and cross, when you should be enjoying a nice cycle ride.
PRSboy wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that no one should be subjected to the close pass in the first place. Attempting, as Nigel does, to say that the cyclist reacts out of anger as opposed to shock is what I disagree with.
Nigel knows this because in his very first post he said “I know people get bored of me saying the same thing over and over again, and accuse me of “victim blaming”, but honestly that would all have been avoided by just being courteous.”
Then he goes on to say this
Which IMHO is projecting his previous anger issues onto the cyclists who react out of shock.
PRSboy wrote:
I disagree with you and Nigel on this. My ride is ruined and I am wound up every time I get a close pass, and in rural Sussex it happens often enough and needless enough to be 2 or times an hour. I’m usually on my own, so it isn’t a bunch of lyrca clad TDF wannabes holding up a poor motorist for miles on end, it’s just me, for maybe 30 seconds.
I can’t help but shout and gesticulate about the closesness of the pass. I’ve noticed that other vehicles will then give me more room, almost without fail. So I have saved myself from an immediate second close pass.
One time, I had a guy slow down, open the passenger window and lean across his wife to argue about my reaction to his poor driving, with his approx 12 year old kid sitting in the back, as we continued along the road at 15-18 mph. I looked at his wife, who looked appalled at his behaviour, and his kid who looked bemused, and I congratulated him on the fine example he was setting.
I have toned my reactions down, I used to swear like a navvy, and I recognise now that doesn’t win friends.
I’ve tried a cheap camera, but it is such a pain to use, I gave up. The battery lasted an hour, which is shorter than most of my rides, so when exactly do you turn it on? Close passes happen from behind and you don’t get any warning most times. The resolution wasn’t great either so often the vibration or the lighting would make number plate recognition impossible. And even if all that was great, I don’t want to sit at home on my pc editing videos of shit driving. To send to a police website that probably won’t do anything.
Looks like a puffed-up coke
Looks like a puffed-up coke head. Gun or knife wrapped in a plastic bag? Hopefully this has been reported and the police will put an ANPR stop on the vehicle.
Alexandra Parade, Dennistoun.
Alexandra Parade, Dennistoun.
I have one of these going
I have one of these going through the Lancashire Constabulary ‘trying to avoid doing anything about it’ process at the moment. Standard BMW crazed psycho driver with a close pass at about 30 mph, caught up at roadworks. No swearing from me, but he threatened to “fucking flatten” me and “you WILL get knocked off”- all on video. Reported online and by 101 (because of the LC dodge where they don’t look at online reports until after the 2 week deadline). That was 7th August- one PC kept promising me the opportunity to make a formal statement, which was never actually offered. At my final reminder, I received an automated reply saying she was not on operational duties. It eventually ended up with another PC who starts again at the beginning. Then he’s on seemingly permanent days off, can’t get the video to work etc. There’s supposed to be some action at the weekend, but I have enough experience of LC to know they have many more do-nothing tricks ready to roll out
Ridiculous and entitled
Ridiculous and entitled motorist decides his ever so important journey wasn’t as urgent as he had considered it to be moments before and that their brakes do actually still function.
reminds me of the time I
reminds me of the time I watched a driver pull out at a mini roundabout, into the flow of traffic such there was a 1m gap between his car and the cars either side.
When the following driver beeped, he suddenly had time to get out and make a scene about it.
Perhaps it’s drivers and not cyclists causing the problems.
Meanwhile, in the forum…
Meanwhile, in the forum…
Post of the day!
Post of the day!
quiff wrote:
This is what happens when people try to engage with those that are just aiming to disrupt and politicise all the discussions in a divisive manner.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Don’t be fooled!
chrisonatrike wrote:
Ha! I thought so….
Have you been wathcing
Have you been watching The Outlaws?
I found it unrealistic – free flowing traffic and no sign of a bicycle !
hirsute wrote:
I’ve seen the first two episodes but was mainly playing “spot the place”.
Mrs Hawkinspeter and I often play a stupid game when watching TV: when a new location appears, one of us will occasionally declare “I used to live there”; “I washed dishes there as a summer job”; “went on holiday there” along with some arbitrary made up facts about the location. It works best with entirely fictional locations, preferably in alternate universes. We used a lot of “been there” calls when watching the first episode.
“Free flowing traffic” – that lorry flowed easily enough into the docks.
Can someone advise on the
Can someone advise on the ideology of the cyclist and the motorist.
I believe that this will assist in understanding the near miss and allow both parties to come to a reconciliation.
Well, I came here this
Well, I came here this morning to find the solution to World Peace.
Disappointed.
hirsute wrote:
Everybody stops fighting.
You’re welcome.
stomec wrote:
A SERMON ON ETHICS AND LOVE
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said
YES?
“O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!”
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON’T SOUND WELL.
“I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe.”
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
“But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it.”
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
Are you a pope?
Are you a pope?
Maybe a lapsed pope
Maybe a lapsed pope