Cambridgeshire police appeal for witnesses after beeping motorist says his car was damaged by cyclist

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I do love these stories... its like they are created by anti-cyclists to bate us and allow us to present ourselves as vigilant, aggression fueled psychos. 

On the face of it, the described actions of the cyclist are inexcusable, however, here we are, with our ifs, buts, and maybes. Anyone wanting to stoke up a bit of anti-cyclist fury can just show them this thread to prove that all spandex wearers are fine with the assualt of elderly and vulnerable citizens. 

What we can all agree on, I hope, is that there is never any justifiable reason to physically attack and damage someone else's property. As a take away, I hope this article will encourage us all to retain a semblance of decency in road rage incidents and not be the one committing a criminal offence. 

Criminal damage is objective... the damage is there for all to see and as such, will be acted upon by our police forces. Hurt feelings and emotional damage is unseen, subjective, which is why episodes of aggression and intimdation are so often not investigated. Don't do physical damage to other peoples property. Don't let the aggressor benefit from being the victim should the shit goes down.

I'm quite happy to be described as vigilant, though maybe not an aggression fueled psycho.

It's equally wrong to assign the actions of an angry cyclist to all cyclists as it is to describe all motorists by the actions of a minority. I do agree about assaulting anyone whether elderly or vulnerable, though I've often fantasised about damaging cars (e.g. those parked inconsiderately).

the assualt of elderly and vulnerable citizens

You would have more credibility if you didn't make up the facts.

According to the Highway Code (my emphasis):

Quote:

Rule 112 The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn
• while stationary on the road
• when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am
except when another road user poses a danger.

So in this case the motorist is saying he used his horn to warn other road users (the cyclists) of his presence, exactly per the highway code.

Sriracha wrote:

According to the Highway Code (my emphasis):

Quote:

Rule 112 The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn • while stationary on the road • when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am except when another road user poses a danger.

So in this case the motorist is saying he used his horn to warn other road users (the cyclists) of his presence, exactly per the highway code.

I think perhaps you should have emphasised the word '...need...'

If you're passing safely, or keeping a safe distance from vehicles in front then there should be no 'need' to sound your horn.

If you're sounding the horn to say 'I'm coming through safe or not, so watch out' then  you shouldn't be anywhere near the horn button, or indeed the steering wheel.

Rule 112 states that you can use the horn (restrictions aside) to warn of your presence, and does not mention danger at all in that part. Where is does mention danger is where you may use your horn in otherwise restricted situations. 

Quote:

The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn

* while stationary on the road
* when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am

except when another road user poses a danger.

I don't get this 1.5 m/5ft overtake, just do it safely.

Avg lane is say 10ft, you cycle left of centre, say 4 ft, so the overtaking vehicle needs to be almost in the opposite lane? Police say vehicles should give the same room you give another vehicle, avg car is 6ft, add on the 5 ft overtake, thats 11ft, then the 2 ft you drive away from the kerb thats 13ft away from the kerb you are no 1ft away from the opposite kerb. It just does not work.......Bit padantic I know but it is just a crowd pleaser, as I said, drivers just overtake safely, problem is what is safe for me is not for you, etc

However,

Just to clarify.

Rule 112

The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn

while stationary on the road
when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am

except when another road user poses a danger.

I try to be legal 95% of the time, I have a very good understanding of the highway code, It is good to refresh yourself with the rules, as most drivers, even cyclists, can quote but dont fully understand. 

Toorie wrote:

I don't get this 1.5 m/5ft overtake, just do it safely.

Avg lane is say 10ft, you cycle left of centre, say 4 ft, so the overtaking vehicle needs to be almost in the opposite lane? Police say vehicles should give the same room you give another vehicle, avg car is 6ft, add on the 5 ft overtake, thats 11ft, then the 2 ft you drive away from the kerb thats 13ft away from the kerb you are no 1ft away from the opposite kerb. It just does not work.......Bit padantic I know but it is just a crowd pleaser, as I said, drivers just overtake safely, problem is what is safe for me is not for you, etc

You seem to have added in the width of the car twice. If I'm* 4 ft from the kerb, you pass me 5 ft away, in your 6 ft wide car, your offside is 4+5+6 ft from the kerb = 15 ft. If there are two 10 ft lanes that gives you a good 5 ft clearance from the opposite kerb.

If I'm only 2 ft from the kerb you can give me 5 ft clearance and still be 7 ft from the opposite kerb.

I do agree, though that the overuse of the 1.5m thing tends to take away from using judgement about a safe passing distance. It should be 1.5m minimum, and more at faster speeds.

[* For the sake of argument, we'll assume this is my offside shoulder.]

Doh,

You ignore the fact that it is frequently safer to ride two abreast, firstly to prevent drivers trying to squeeze through without leaving the mandatory 1.5 gap and secondly because it means their overtake time will be shorter.

we know it is, but most drivers are not cyclists, so do not understand why two abreast is easier to pass. Hence they give a retarded beep in anger. I'd have attacked the guys car too if they beeped at me. I'd probably stand in front of it until they got out, then take the keys and cycle off. If they can't operate the vehicle correctly, they should not be driving it, so the keys will come home with me. 

LOL,

When I was instructing on the M-bike, one of our instructors had a driver bump a pupil deliberately, the instructor stopped took the keys out of the car and threw them in a field then they drove off. LMAO

I get that dream sometimes too. 

This is something most drivers dont understand, you are correct

as you are wheeling yourself around in a wheelchair saying

If you're resorting to that, it means you've lost the argument.

Anominity,  one of the perks of cycling........

99% of the time, a driver carries out a dangerous manoeuvre then just drives off with no consequences.

I don't buy this registration plate = accountability idea. It simply doesn't work that way in pracitce. Think about it.

was this you? 

https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/07/cyclist-fits-air-horn-bike-get-pedestrian...

the last pedestrian in that footage lashes out, possibly due to feeling threatened by the obnoxious and aggressive guy on a bike.

I don't think anyone is condoning the actions of the cyclist. If this is an accurate account of the event, then it's completely unacceptable. But there could be more to it.

Firstly, not all drivers who honk their horn are being impatient.

True but we don't know whether that relates here as we've only heard one side.

But none of that justifies forcing the driver to stop the car and then hitting it hard enough to leave a dent.

Again we've only heard one side. Maybe the cyclist felt threatened by an impatient driver who used his horn aggressively and feared he would use his car as a weapon.

Yes, nobody was hurt, but how did the driver and his wife know that it would stop there?

Maybe, just maybe, the driver shouldn't have started a confrontation, intentionally or otherwise. Again we don't know the full events without hearing the other side.

How would you feel if it happened to your parents or grandparents?

Please, not a strawman.

So, we don't know that the driver wasn't honking his horn impatiently (although that's what's implied by the police statement), but we're happy to speculate that the driver may have been using his car as a weapon?

At least one of the cyclists was very aggressive. We shouldn't try to blame the victim. There are arseholes on bikes as well as arseholes in cars (and yes, I know, cars are more dangerous).

Lastly, can you please explain to me how I am making a straw man argument?

Are you saying none of the cyclists was a victim?
As that requires you to take the drivers claims at face value, including the 'inestimable' claim and the very odd "one cyclist pulled out into the road and stopped, bringing the driver to a halt.". Not sure how you pull out on to a road you are already on in a group of riders.

Cambridge Police refuse to treat cylists as victims, unless hospitalized. People reporting dangerous driving are treated by them as "witnesses" not victims (despite the Victims charter describing people endangered in road traffic accidents as victims). As such, they refuse to provide any information on the report, whether they took action, etc., citing "data privacy". Purely coincidentally, Cambridge Police have an appalling record on failing to conduct investigations when such incidents are reported to them.

I completely get that not all drivers who honk their horns are being impatient. However, seeing as how I'm pretty sure that the horn should really be used only to warn of danger (I'm sure someone can supply the appropriate Highway Code reference), there really is absolutely no need for them to be used in the vast majority of cases they are. This particularly applies to motorists using them in interactions with cyclists. It's pretty clear that the driver in this instance didn't need to use his horn. I've had this thing happen to me multiple times, and all I can think is "If you're using your horn to alert me of the danger involved in you passing me, then, um, you really shouldn't be passing me". But of course, most of the time it's just misunderstanding why the horn should be used, or being intimidatory or aggressive. The amount of times that drivers use their horns at cyclists or pedestrians to simply say "get out of my way" is staggering. And the amount of the times that the driver simply could have wound down their window and politely asked the pedestrian if they could step aside is also staggering. I was once waiting on my bike at a red light for temporary road works on the Ullswater Road in the Lake District. The light changed but I could see there was a cyclist still coming through. I waited and the car behind me honked their horn at me. I understand why this might be appropraite to do to another car driver who you feel may have not noticed the lights changing, as they are cocooned in their vehicle. But why on earth couldn't they have just wound down their window and said "The light's changed mate" or something similar - then I could have explained why I was still waiting. As it was, because of the inherently aggressive nature of sounding their horn, I turned around, swore at them and gave them the finger, and pointed to the cyclist as they came through.