An encounter betwen an oblivious driver and an arrogant cyclist - General

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;48277363]biker had right of way, why should he have had to concede, especially with that woman's attitude oh my god, i would have planted myself firm in that position if i were him [/QUOTE] I'm not sure about English driving laws, but Estonian clearly state that if circumstances are dangerous for you, you shouldn't stand your ground and concede your road priorities even if you have priority. This guy is a moron to the boot, an asshole to the cheek and a fucktard to the head.

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;48278072]you're missing a huge facotr and advantage a bycicle has over a car, the bycicle can actually go onto the side walk to get past obstacles. If it was an oncoming car? Yea it's her fault and she does not have the right of way. But It's a bycicle, you can pick on of those up or hop the curb with it, Infact, I used to bike, and this would have literally been second nature and not even something that I'd be butt hurt about like this guy is. Regardless of what the law is in the area, thats just a fact. Frankly its a major dick move to pull the type of shit he did there, whether the law was on his side or not.[/QUOTE] Why does the woman in the car have the right to make the cyclist go on the pavement (which is actually illegal here in the UK) when, by law, he is a full user of the road. She would not do the same to a car, and by law a bike gets the same respect as a car, so she should not do it to the bike. That is the law of the area, and that's also a fact! It is not down to other users of the road to take away or infringe on the cyclist's rights as a road user. If the cyclist chooses to waive those rights and use the pavements etc., it is on their head. Yes, the cyclist could've gone through the gap, but he doesn't have to and shouldn't be forced to. She should have waited until he had gone past the line of parked cars before pulling out onto the wrong side of the road to pass them as that is when it would've been safe to pass, NOT whilst the cyclist is coming towards her/

[QUOTE=Cabbalistic;48277812] Why should the cyclist have to concede to the woman because she was driving a car that was larger than the bike? She was on the wrong side of the road, she was pushing through when it wasn't safe too, she didn't have priority here, she is at fault here.[/QUOTE] Next time you're crossing the road on the zebra and you see that the car is not stopping, are you going to go in any case just to prove a point? Fucking idiotic.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48278373]Next time you're crossing the road on the zebra and you see that the car is not stopping, are you going to go in any case just to prove a point? Fucking idiotic.[/QUOTE] And who is in the wrong in this situation? The car that doesn't stop for the crossing... Of course I wouldn't go and put myself in a life-threatening situation to prove a point to someone. The cyclist didn't have too much choice here though, get out of the way quickly and give up his priority and risk getting hurt in the process by falling from hitting the curb or something, or stand his ground and hope she stops in time.

Jesus how did they even make a problem out of this. The biker could have just passed VERY EASILY, she even stopped.

[QUOTE=Cabbalistic;48278428]And who is in the wrong in this situation? The car that doesn't stop for the crossing... Of course I wouldn't go and put myself in a life-threatening situation to prove a point to someone. The cyclist didn't have too much choice here though, get out of the way quickly and give up his priority and risk getting hurt in the process by falling from hitting the curb or something, or stand his ground and hope she stops in time.[/QUOTE] [quote]if circumstances are dangerous for you, [b]you shouldn't stand your ground and concede your road priorities even if you have priority.[/b][/quote] It was not his problem the woman didn't give him priority, true, but that doesn't make him any less wrong that he doesn't adapt to the situation. He is determinately threatening his life himself. If she stopped in the middle of the fucking road, it would have saved the day for everyone if he just went onto the ped. walk, waited through, and got on with his life. Where the fuck do you get such entitled ideas?

I have previously stated that I agree that he could've gone through the gap if he had wanted to. However I strongly believe that he has the right to hold his ground on the road if he wants to (and the law backs this up). Why should he go out of his way to get out of the way of a car just because it is bigger than him. Should the same apply with a car facing a lorry even if the car is in the wrong? Regarding the law Raven is quoting, it's an Estonian law, not an English one, I don't know if an equivalent English one exists but that one doesn't apply here, as this happened in England, not Estonia. Common sense does dictate that if possible one should get out of harm's way, however if he didn't believe he could get out of the way safely, or that he was not in immediate danger, standing his ground seems the next best thing as it produces the greatest encouragement for the woman to stop (the fight or flight response). I don't see how people can suddenly start saying disregard the laws in this situation to analyse it because clearly they still apply, as they do in every situation presented. If this was a car vs. car incident, no one would be having this conversation. By law the bike has the same priorities as a car and should be treated as such. I believe it would be interesting to see if he had moved over to the edge (not on the pavement) before she had stopped, would she still have stopped. It is possible that she wouldn't have, possibly endangering the cyclist due to the speed and proximity she would've passed with. [editline]23rd July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48278535]It was not his problem the woman didn't give him priority, true, but that doesn't make him any less wrong that he doesn't adapt to the situation. He is determinately threatening his life himself. If she stopped in the middle of the fucking road, it would have saved the day for everyone if he just went onto the ped. walk, waited through, and got on with his life. Where the fuck do you get such entitled ideas?[/QUOTE] I get entitled ideas such as equal treatment (car vs. bike in this case) from the law, my apologies for that!

[QUOTE=Cabbalistic;48277992]She was on the wrong side of the road going past the parked cars when it wasn't safe to do so due to the oncoming cyclist, effectively breaking the law. Why should the cyclist have to squeeze through a small gap when he has the right to respected as a road user and use his side of the road? If it was a car in place of the bike, would you expect it to bounce up onto the curb and pass her (at risk of damaging the car), or would you expect priority? [editline]23rd July 2015[/editline] Just because the car in front has gone doesn't mean it is safe for the one behind to go, he had to check it was safe and wait for a larger gap since he was slower than a car.[/QUOTE] ah shit, my bad. I didn't realize it was a roundabout.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;48278535]Where the fuck do you get such entitled ideas?[/QUOTE] because cyclists have just as much rights to the road as car drivers do

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;48279131]because cyclists have just as much rights to the road as car drivers do[/QUOTE] But not to as much of the road because frankly a bike is small. Small enough to move alongside the car. There was probably enough room for him to move while never leaving the road. The car was stopped. YES he was probably legally in the right, but he was also an arrogant dick. Like those people who start shit at immigration checkpoints in the US. I get it, it's the law, but just fucking deal with it, move along, adapt to the situation.

I've never really understood why there isn't a damn rule for letting cyclists ride on pavements when there are no other civilians around, what makes more sense, for 1 cyclist to ride on the road and endanger his/her own life needlessly and be a potential hazard to everybody over taking compared to an empty pavement.

[QUOTE=A Glitch;48279220]I've never really understood why there isn't a damn rule for letting cyclists ride on pavements when there are no other civilians around, what makes more sense, for 1 cyclist to ride on the road and endanger his/her own life needlessly and be a potential hazard to everybody over taking compared to an empty pavement.[/QUOTE] Technically you can dismount and carry your bike because then you're considered a pedestrian.

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;48279131]because cyclists have just as much rights to the road as car drivers do[/QUOTE] Which is the most bullshit thing ever because cyclists hardly ever follow the laws of the road. This guy in the video is 100% asshole. I've been a cyclist for a while now because no access to car and I change between being a ped and a biker and watch out for cars and let them pass because THEY ARE FUCKING FASTER AND BIGGER. There was no one walking on the sidewalk in this video and this asshole biker decided "lel im a fucking car, i have rights" he could have just jumped on the sidewalk and continued but decided that according to law he's a fucking car

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;48277363]sorry but compared to that woman he had the patience of an angel[/QUOTE] That's not patience, that's ego.

Though he may be in the legal right, the guy is just being a dick for the sake of it for sure. Seems to be the same kind of person who exploits open-carry in the USA just because [i]they can[/i]. The woman definitely overreacted to the situation, which just gave him more of what he wanted.

Was she supposed to go backwards out of that alleyway? What if there were cars behind her? They all would have to back out of that alleyway until there is nothing in his cyclist lane? If that's true, then I'd say that would be more unsafe than just having the cyclist ride through while the cars are stopped.

Wow, hypocrite much? This dude bitches about people with cars when hes THIS inconsiderate to pedestrians? [video=youtube;mI101a4SRBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI101a4SRBA[/video]

[QUOTE=Cabbalistic;48277585]From the Highway Code regarding overtaking a cyclist [IMG]https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg[/IMG] [url]https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169[/url] Common sense would dictate that same applies for going against them too. [editline]23rd July 2015[/editline] IMO she should've given way to him rather than trying to push through[/QUOTE] That's on an open road where you're both going 20+MPH, this was just some woman trying to squeeze by through an alleyway where half the road is blocked by another car. They could have easily passed each other without risk of someone getting hurt.

[QUOTE=Bragdras;48278004]You may be the problem.[/QUOTE] not really, they all just start spitting and ranting and raving and getting red-faced and i just end up laughing

[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;48279131]because cyclists have just as much rights to the road as car drivers do[/QUOTE] No they don't. They aren't registered, they don't require a license or training. They don't even pay taxes on them. Until they have all that + tags on their bikes, they have no rights on the road. Same for the assholes who ride these shitty Chinese scooters at 15 mph and get pissed when you pass them.

As far as I know bicycles can legally lane split through traffic with gaps smaller than that. I don't like the fact that bicycles can just "choose" how much space they want to take up on the road. In this moment i feel like being seen as a car just to cause confrontation - SORRY CAN'T PASS ME. Oh it's convenient for me to lane split through all this traffic? Well now i'm a bicycle. It's silly in my opinion

I only wish they wouldn't go through red lights as much as they do around these parts.

I don't think they have save roads for cycling in England at all, it looks scary as shit. Dutch roads remain the best with clearly indicated cycling lanes, their own crossing points on the road etc. And even when there aren't any lanes for em, pretty much all drivers know and are trained how to share the road with them. The fact that pretty much every kid in this country cycles to school from a young age helps as well. Do they train UK drivers on how to handle cyclists in traffic at all? Dude in OPs vid was being a shit though, you're on a bike.. why not signal that you will pass her on the left of the road and give her a nod and a smile? His and her day would have been a lot better. Anyho, the lady could have just said fuck it I'll reverse and let this dick get on with his shitty day. Stuff like this is so pointless.

[QUOTE=arthuro12;48285131]I don't think they have save roads for cycling in England at all, it looks scary as shit. Dutch roads remain the best with clearly indicated cycling lanes, their own crossing points on the road etc. And even when there aren't any lanes for em, pretty much all drivers know and are trained how to share the road with them. The fact that pretty much every kid in this country cycles to school from a young age helps as well. Do they train UK drivers on how to handle cyclists in traffic at all? Dude in OPs vid was being a shit though, you're on a bike.. why not signal that you will pass her on the left of the road and give her a nod and a smile? His and her day would have been a lot better. Anyho, the lady could have just said fuck it I'll reverse and let this dick get on with his shitty day. Stuff like this is so pointless.[/QUOTE] I agree - I would cycle a lot more if it was safer. And there is minimal training for how to handle bikes.