Thursday, 22 September 2011

I’m Not Saying He Had It Coming, But…

A motorist deliberately knocked a Bournemouth cyclist off his bike, breaking his collarbone in three places.
Outrageous! Awful! Unprovok….

Oh. Wait.
Stephen is a member of New Forest Cycling Club and was out training on his Cannondale time trial bike at South Weir, just after 2pm on Sunday, September 11.

He was cycling towards Brockenhurst and said two car drivers came through a pinch point at around 40mph, when he believed he had the right of way.
Hmmmm, he ‘believed’, did he? Is that based on some section of the Highway Code, or perhaps just on the overweening arrogance of the average cyclist?
He slammed on his brakes and stopped just in time to give a frustrated ‘V’ gesture to the second car.
Ah. This incident is taking on quite a different complexion now, isn’t it?
The driver turned around and about 90 seconds later knocked Stephen off and drove away without stopping.
I don’t approve of that, and he should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon but only a cyclist could possibly go whinging to the local newspaper and blithely expect his own part in starting the whole unseemly kerfuffle to go unnoticed...

42 comments:

Jackart said...

Those pinch points such as pedestrian islands are lethal to cyclists - motorists regard them as a "finish line" in a race. There's no excuse for trying to "squeeze through", as there's not enough room on the carriage way for both.

The motorist has to wait 5, maybe 10 seconds to get through before putting the boot down. The vehicle, yes a cycle is a vehicle, in front does indeed have right of way.

Your post drips ignorance, again.

Eco Warriors Ready! said...

To continue Jackart's point:

... And cyclists should equally obey the laws of the road (though we accept many of them try not to). These pinch points are merely masturbation fantasies for local government 'officers' to get excited about, but in my experience they have signs that display who exactly has the right of way. If the injured man chose to ignore a priority ruling because he was too superior then he was in the wrong.

He didn't deserve to be knocked down, I agree. Motorists who use their cars like weapons should have their cars crushed before their very eyes and the scarp sold off to help pay hospital bills for the injured.

But dripping ignorance, if you do drive a car, is sometimes entirely with the cyclists who choose to ride through pedestrian on pavements or ignore red lights.

Curmudgeon said...

Believing you had right of way is scant consolation if you're lying in a hospital bed - or on a mortuary slab. And if you read the Highway Code, you'll notice that, while it often says "give way to...", it never says that in any particular situation, anyone "has right of way".

Twenty_Rothmans said...

Softcock should have alighted from his car and administered the spokehead a sound thrashing. So I'm annoyed with the motorist, that was unsporting.

As a keen cyclist, my high moral ground is eroded every time some simian carves up the footpath or actively ignores a red light.

Jackart said...

To paraphrase the rest of this thread. "They run red lights, WAAAAAAAA!"

You flabby-thighed bunch of soft-cocks.

Pavlov's Cat said...

@Curmudgeon

Highway code
Road junctions (170-183)
170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way


Seem pretty much 'right of way' to me

Anonymous said...

Who is to say that the vehicle did not have right of way? One word against another really....it's about being courteous.

I have been a driver or over 25 years, been cut up many times and i have never resorted to verbal abuse or hand gestures.

I wonder if the car driver pulled up alongside demanding to talk to the cyclist about his V sign and when the cyclist didn't, ended up swerving in front out of frustration. We have only got the cyclists word on this.

Eco Warriors Ready! said...

Jackart's intellect in full flow: "You flabby-thighed bunch of soft-cocks."

Takes one to know one, as they say.

Jackart said...

Motorists (who never break a speed limit...) should stop bleating about "the law" when complaining about cyclists running a light when it's safe to do so.

And long distance driving DOES have an impact on fertility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/769902.stm & Cycling does have an impact on Thighs.

So. Flabby-thighed soft cocks is apt, really.

Rob said...

So next time you sound your horn in frustration at another driver you are fair game for attempted murder. This is not hyperbole - if you deliberately drive a car at someone fast enough to break bones you are trying to kill them.

It is very easy to see who has right of way at these pinch points. There are often signs saying so. So if he believed he had right of way he probably did. The drivers, being in large metal boxes, decided otherwise. That someone should react to their arrogance by trying to kill them is crazy, no matter what depths your irrational dislike of cyclists goes.

If you cut me up at a junction, can I drag you out of your car and beat you half to death? Would complaining about that make you a 'whinger'?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"...cyclists running a light when it's safe to do so..."

That's a defence, is it?

"I ran the red light, officer, because I deemed it safe to do so; whatever the law or the Highway Code may say, I know better."

Good luck with that one in court, and in court is where you ought to be if that's your attitude.

Curmudgeon said...

"Motorists (who never break a speed limit...) should stop bleating about "the law" when complaining about cyclists running a light when it's safe to do so."

Completely irrelevant, as cyclists are not subject to speed limits anyway. All the laws that apply to both, such as running red lights, riding/driving on the pavement and not using lights, are broken far more often by cyclists.

Does anyone imagine that, if cyclists were subject to speed limits that were slower than the speed at which they would otherwise choose to travel, they would not exceed them as a matter of routine?

Jackart said...

Of course, the law is an ass for all concerned. Motorway speed limits should be higher urban speed limits lower. Lights should be advisory for cyclists, as they are in Euorpe and so on. Just as the police ignore most speeding (which is why when one is caught it feels so unjust) they ignore most red-light running. The police ignore it because it ain't unsafe. Plus they can't catch a decent cyclist in town. Trust me, I know, even on a motorbike.

So. The whole of motoring law needs a revision.

I just LOVE provoking a motorist hateathon.

Rob said...

Clearly you deserve to die for doing so J.

Henry Crun said...

*gets more popcorn*

Jiks said...

I was ploughed into yesterday by some half-wit driving council van out of a side-road without looking.

Luckily I merely ended up airbourne so long I thought they were going to charge me extra for the bike rather than under his wheels. God knows some of my fellow cyclists can be dicks too but I do wish the guys waving several tons of metal around could perhaps use their eyes once in a while. It's not exactly hard to see my mobile disco impression after all...

Anonymous said...

So long distance driving makes you "soft cocked",while cycling with an arrogant attitude makes you soft boned.

English Viking said...

Jacktart,

Your arrogance is going to earn you a supreme kicking from a white van man one day.

Thoroughly deserved.

Jim said...

" Lights should be advisory for cyclists, as they are in Euorpe and so on"

I'm sorry but thats b*ll&cks. Its not just yourself that you are endangering by riding around with no lights on (as plenty seem to do already) but also the lives of other road users. If a driver sees an unlit bicycle at the last second and swerves to avoid them, they could kill or injure someone else or themselves. Plus if a driver does hit an unlit cyclist and kill them, they have to live with that for the rest of their lives.

Lights cost a few quid off ebay. Is that too much to pay to help save your life and the lives of others?

JuliaM said...

"Lights cost a few quid off ebay. Is that too much to pay to help save your life and the lives of others?"

I'm assuming that the 'lights' referred to there are red traffic lights, which Jackart has consistently suggested - in discussions here and elsewhere - should not be binding on cyclists.

I'm assuming - cyclist or not - he isn't dim enough to suggest cyclists shouldn't make every effort to be visible in low light!

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Curmudgeon said...
Completely irrelevant, as cyclists are not subject to speed limits anyway. XX

Yes they are.

There is even a particular offence of "furiously riding a push bike (Or "pedaled conveyance" rings a....na, no cycling pun intended...bell)."

(UNLESS it has changed in the last 20 years. Which given the state of what we laughingly (if it was not so sad) call the "British justice system", is entirely probable.)

And for Jacktarts future reference, it is also an offence to cycle through a red light. And "right of way" as you piut it should go to the one paying the road tax. Which is not the wanker in kinky lycra.

Lee said...

If this pinch-point hadn't been created this never would have happened. Personally I'd put the PC pillock who decided to put it there in the dock.

Jiks said...

FT, you really should know better.

Road Tax is no more used to maintain the roads than tobacco duty is to build more cigarette factories.

Curmudgeon said...

"Road Tax is no more used to maintain the roads than tobacco duty is to build more cigarette factories."

Oh, we're really getting all the tired old chestnuts dragged out here, aren't we?

Maintaining roads is a function of government, funded from taxation. Building tobacco factories isn't.

phiangle said...

As a cyclist and a motorcyclist I am often amazed at how other two wheeled road users put themselves needlessly in danger. If you cannot anticipate that a car driver may cut you up at a pinch point, really you need to think if you are safe to be on two wheels. Not saying it’s right, but it is predictable.

Regardless of who has right of way - a tonne of car always wins over a squishy cyclist and it’s very hard to take the moral high ground from under a wheel arch.

Ride like everybody is out to kill you and you will be pleasantly surprised when they don’t.

RantinRab said...

Are you a member of a cycling club?
Do you use dual carriageways at the weekends to ride on with your chums?
Do you think a few signs hammered into the grassed edge of the road makes you immune from the rules of the road?

Then you are a total cock.

Jiks said...

"Maintaining roads is a function of government, funded from taxation."

Exactly. I pay quite enough tax and then some, thank you. That it does not have a label showing an imaginary connection to tarmac is beside the point IMO.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Jiks said...

FT, you really should know better.

Road Tax is no more used to maintain the roads than tobacco duty is to build more cigarette factories. XX

The fact is, that one pays tax for the right to be on the road, the other is no better than a cuckoo, taking what is not theirs and assuming rights of use.

What that money is eventually and actually used for is not relevant.

Bill said...

Not a problem where I live as the cyclists ride on the pavements with and without lights.

blueknight said...

In my town cyclists jump red lights,
cycle the wrong way down one way streets, ride on the pavement, ride at night with no lights and cut in front of traffic without signalling.

On the subject of soft cocks...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/no-nose-bicycle-seat-erectile-dysfunction-prostate.php

Ian Thorpe said...

It in't really about rights of way or traffic laws or anything about that. It's about pitting a hundred and fifty pounds og frail, sensate, human being made of blood and fleash and bones against a ton of unfeeling metal, rubber and plastic.

Should be a no brainer even for a cyclist. Unforytunately it is often a different kinbd of no brainer for the bloke on the bike.

Anonymous said...

I have but two accidents to my credit as a cyclist. Both pedestrians I knocked down were extremely lucky because most of my accidents arose when I took the Porsche for a spin.

Zaphod said...

Riding a bicycle among traffic is dangerous. Always will be.

Jackass; if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Cycling is for the brave and alert.

MTG said...

"...the other is no better than a cuckoo..."

Untermensch for sure, mine Furor. Any results from the feasibility study into recycling at spezial camps, bitte?

Anonymous said...

I have only given tickets to cyclists going through red lights on two occasions.The first one went through the light after squeezing past me (in a marked car).I stopped him and warned him.At the next set he did it again so he got one.
The second one was an arrogant sod who shot past me at a red light going very fast forcing an oncoming car, who had the right of way,to stop.Both cyclists were most surprised to be fined.
It seems that posts about cyclists bring out stronger feelings than illegal immigration/europe/
/soft sentences/child porn...
Jaded

Mark said...

Broke his collarbone in three places? Fuck me he must have yanked hard on that steering wheel. Hope he didn't scratch the paint on his car.

Tattyfalarr said...

Oh well...if you go looking for trouble you will usually find it.

JuliaM said...

*eyes comment thread*

Blimey!

JuliaM said...

" The vehicle, yes a cycle is a vehicle, in front does indeed have right of way."

Not necessarily, as has been pointed out here, and on the story thread.

"It is very easy to see who has right of way at these pinch points. There are often signs saying so. So if he believed he had right of way he probably did. "

If he did, he wouldn't have said 'he believed' he had...

"Oh, we're really getting all the tired old chestnuts dragged out here, aren't we?"

Always happens!

"Oh well...if you go looking for trouble you will usually find it."

Indeed!

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Jackart. A cycle is a vehicle and in this instance, it did, most likely, have right of way. The motorist has to be aware of the vulnerability of the cyclist and act accordingly.

The hostility of the average motorist to the average cyclist is an issue which needs to be addressed. Especially as it might not be too long before we're all on our bikes!

Ian Pattinson said...

For all the supposedly evil, antisocial and deadly things we cyclists are accused of, somehow it's still the saintly drivers who kill people. It seems it's a national disgrace if one person a year is killed by a cyclist but a rousing victory if fewer than three thousand are killed by motorists.

On my bike I follow more of the rules of the road than the majority of drivers I encounter every day. Drivers have these magical blinkers which only allow them to see cyclists behaving badly but blank out all the motorists who run red lights (which is more dangerous a car doing thirty or a cyclist edging through a gap?), speed up on amber, turn without indicating or checking their mirrors, pull into the cycle lane or onto the pavement, park on double yellows etc. etc.

And there is no such thing as Road Tax. I pay for the roads I ride on with my Council Tax and you can bet I'm angry at all the idiots who tell me I have no right to use tehm

Hye said...

It's work looking at the road in street view. Unless there have been works there since the Google car drove by (not too likely I'd imagine), they're not the sort of 'pinch points' that you'd expect from reading the article.