# Horror Video Of Motorist Abuse!



## G2EWS (27 Sep 2012)

Hi All,

A friend has just pointed this out on facebook:


View: http://youtu.be/FsybHRYcKmQ


Regards

Chris


----------



## Paul_L (27 Sep 2012)

Madness.

Dickhead in the Nissan moaning about being held up by a bike then stops and wastes more of his time remonstrating with the cyclist.

The only thing i do in similar situations when i'm in a strong primary and preventing traffic from over taking is regular shoulder checks and eye contact with the car behind, letting them know that i know they're there. Sometimes doesn't make any difference but occasionally some eye contact can help to diffuse a situation.


----------



## Peteaud (27 Sep 2012)

Big flash 4x4 type of vehicle (i know they are 2wd) says it all.

Fair enough not all "big 4wd type" are the same but i does seem the norm.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (27 Sep 2012)

The sad truth is, you'll always find people feel 'ard' when coccooned in their cars/vans/trucks. It doesn't matter if you're in a car/van yourself, there is always someone in more of a rush than everyone else because their time is worth so much more than the next man. Clowns.


----------



## Crosstrailer (27 Sep 2012)

As usual, watching this lead me to viewing several other films of cyclists getting mangled by idiotic driving, with hundreds of moronic comments from people hiding behind keyboards droning on incorrectly about road tax..........


----------



## HovR (27 Sep 2012)

I met someone like this the other day

"You're in the middle of the road!"
"Yes, I'm turning right onto the main road at a T-Junction, read the highway code."
"What would you say if I ran you over?" 

Felt sorry for the little baby in the front seat having her dad scream over her at me.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2064377, member: 45"]And the update.[/quote]

Result. I'd be interested how he got the poilice to have a word and issue the notice.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Sep 2012)

It's a Nissan - he'll have kids. Just bizarre behaviour.

Cheshire police..don't recognise the location.


----------



## Drago (27 Sep 2012)

HovR said:


> "What would you say if I ran you over?"


"What would you say if I rammed 4 stiff fingers in to your windpipe?" Would've been my considered response.

There are some first class arrissholes out there. Why wasn't he knocked off for threats to kill?


----------



## sabian92 (28 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's a Nissan - he'll have kids. Just bizarre behaviour.
> 
> Cheshire police..don't recognise the location.



Runcorn-Widnes bridge, Runcorn side. 

I'm very local to it - some horrendous driving on it.


----------



## Dangermouse (28 Sep 2012)

If that was me he would have had a lovely deep scratch along the passenger side by my watch for being such a d**khead as he drove off.........sorry mate but you didnt give me any room


----------



## mr_hippo (28 Sep 2012)

I see no-one has commented on the start of the video. Subtitles say "...no room to overtake here..." So what does our intrepid hero try to do? Squeeze between the silver Ford and the cones! Runcorn Bridge is very bad at times - it was even worse in the old days when there were only three lanes.
The cyclist is local and knows there are roadworks so why not look at different routes? I am not talking about Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby, Capenhurst, Birkenhead, Liverpool, Widnes or the shorter one via Warrington. Use the shared use footpath. Cross the bridge, stop at the first bus stop, cut throught to Irwell Street and then left onto Mersey Road.


----------



## Globalti (28 Sep 2012)

It was two immature men with too much testosterone having a spat about who had the right to the territory. Nations have gone to war for the same reason.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Sep 2012)

Globalti said:


> It was two immature men with too much testosterone having a spat about who had the right to the territory. Nations have gone to war for the same reason.


 
What would you expect the cyclist to do then?


----------



## 400bhp (28 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2064712, member: 45"]Why should the cyclist look for a different route?? He wasn't causing a problem to anyone.[/quote]

His usual MO Paul


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> I see no-one has commented on the start of the video. Subtitles say "...no room to overtake here..." So what does our intrepid hero try to do? Squeeze between the silver Ford and the cones! Runcorn Bridge is very bad at times - it was even worse in the old days when there were only three lanes.
> The cyclist is local and knows there are roadworks so why not look at different routes? I am not talking about Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby, Capenhurst, Birkenhead, Liverpool, Widnes or the shorter one via Warrington. Use the shared use footpath. Cross the bridge, stop at the first bus stop, cut throught to Irwell Street and then left onto Mersey Road.


The mouthpiece of the "What's your problem I didn't _actually_ hit you" School of Motoring speaks again.


----------



## mr_hippo (28 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2064712, member: 45"]Why should the cyclist look for a different route?? He wasn't causing a problem to anyone.[/quote]
If there are roadworks on your commute, do you find an alternative? Or do you suffer the roadworks and whinge about it on here? If I am travelling down the Korat by-pass to home, I have my prefered route but I also have about 10 more to choose from.
I do not know where the cyclist's destination was but if it were Widnes town centre, towards Prescot or Warrington then that would be my choice rather than face the Moor Lane roundabout. I realise that he cannot get up to 30 mph on the footpath but being safe is far better than shaving a few seconds off his time - if you disregard the time he spends arguing with fellow road users.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> If there are roadworks on your commute, do you find an alternative? Or do you suffer the roadworks and whinge about it on here? If I am travelling down the Korat by-pass to home, I have my prefered route but I also have about 10 more to choose from.
> I do not know where the cyclist's destination was but if it were Widnes town centre, towards Prescot or Warrington then that would be my choice rather than face the Moor Lane roundabout. I realise that he cannot get up to 30 mph on the footpath but being safe is far better than shaving a few seconds off his time - if you disregard the time he spends arguing with fellow road users.


 
It might have been the first time he road on it and didn't know.

This might have been the only bad incident the cyclist had, or a small minority of incidents of which this was one, and the positives of cycling there outweigh the negatives.

He didn't whinge on here - someone else posted his vid. The cam cyclists took action and hasn't whinged. That action has resulted in the car driver receiving a caution.


----------



## mr_hippo (28 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> It might have been the first time he road on it and didn't know.
> He didn't whinge on here - someone else posted his vid. The cam cyclists took action and hasn't whinged. That action has resulted in the car driver receiving a caution.


Forgive me for asking but is Engkish your mother tongue? Did I say that the cyclist whinged on here? *NO! *If you had bothered to read what I wrote and not read what you thought I wrote, you would have seen that the question was directed towards Mr Paul
"It might have been the first time he road [sic' on it and didn't know." Stop the video at 30 seconds - you may need an adult to help you with this. Now read the last sentence the one beginning "I know the cones..." So he knows that the cones are there so not the first time.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Forgive me for asking but is Engkish your mother tongue? Did I say that the cyclist whinged on here? *NO! *If you had bothered to read what I wrote and not read what you thought I wrote, you would have seen that the question was directed towards Mr Paul
> "It might have been the first time he road [sic' on it and didn't know." Stop the video at 30 seconds - you may need an adult to help you with this. Now read the last sentence the one beginning "I know the cones..." So he knows that the cones are there so not the first time.


 
I read your first sentence-that is all. On ignore from now on.


----------



## pplpilot (28 Sep 2012)

I hate all this urban warrior stuff. And Cyclists are the worst offenders. There are good drivers and bad drivers, there are good cyclists and bad cyclists, always has been and always will be. I'm a keen cyclist, I commute when the mood takes me, I cycle most weekends. I cant be bothered trying to change the attitude of road users, it a motorist want to be a Twat near me I pull over and let them on their way.


----------



## on the road (28 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> I see no-one has commented on the start of the video. Subtitles say "...no room to overtake here..." So what does our intrepid hero try to do? Squeeze between the silver Ford and the cones! Runcorn Bridge is very bad at times - it was even worse in the old days when there were only three lanes.
> The cyclist is local and knows there are roadworks so why not look at different routes? I am not talking about Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby, Capenhurst, Birkenhead, Liverpool, Widnes or the shorter one via Warrington. Use the shared use footpath. Cross the bridge, stop at the first bus stop, cut throught to Irwell Street and then left onto Mersey Road.


What shared use footpath? There is no shared use footpath on the Runcorn Bridge, only a pedestrian footpath, some cyclists use it but it's not a cycle path or a shared use path. And Warrington is even more busy, I sometimes ride through Warrington and the traffic is very slow and bumper to bumper, and if he was travelling in the direction of Liverpool then going through Warrington would be a bit of a detour.

I often go over the Runcorn Bridge knowing that there are road works, I don't mind the road works, I just try to get over as quick as possible although I haven't had anyone threaten me like that, it is a rare event.


----------



## Crackle (28 Sep 2012)

I used to ride the bridge regularly. It's never pleasant going over it, best approach is to reach mach1 and get it over with. I have sometimes used the footpath. You can feel the whole bridge shaking on that and it's not for the vertiginous.


----------



## ohnovino (28 Sep 2012)

I've ridden with traffic on Runcorn Bridge a few times, and I won't be doing it again. I twice had cars pull alongside me in the next lane then just move across and shove me out the way, and I got some very close overtakes form HGVs. The approach roads aren't much fun either, especially if you're heading Runcorn-to-Widnes. So now if I go that way I'm a crazy rule breaker and ride on the footpath, along with perhaps 99% of the other cyclists who use the bridge.

BTW, my favourite place to cross the Mersey is cutting through a little business park by Warrington Bank Quay station - cars can't get through the bus gate so it's very quiet.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> Forgive me for asking but is Engkish your mother tongue? Did I say that the cyclist whinged on here? *NO! *If you had bothered to read what I wrote and not read what you thought I wrote, you would have seen that the question was directed towards Mr Paul
> "It might have been the first time he road [sic' on it and didn't know." Stop the video at 30 seconds - you may need an adult to help you with this. Now read the last sentence the one beginning "I know the cones..." So he knows that the cones are there so not the first time.


 To answer your first question with a question. Is English your first langauge?

Maybe its time you gave serious consideration to your failing second sight. The cones as you pointed out were there, what cannot be seen in the video is when they started. Where they end, you can see quite clearly. You wish to give directions as to what someone should do. "_How could you or anyone else who has no knowledge of the area help me? You do not know the terrain, road surface and camber, traffic flow or density." _give advice on a change of route without knowing what that change will involve. Other than it takes the cyclist out of the drivers way, in this case.

Were you by any chance the driver?


----------



## 4F (28 Sep 2012)

classic33 said:


> Were you by any chance the driver?


 
I very much doubt he popped over from Thailand.


----------



## on the road (28 Sep 2012)

4F said:


> I very much doubt he popped over from Thailand.


I reckon he used Google Earth


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Sep 2012)

I have snipped all but the one useful word of your post to answer your earlier question:
_"The cyclist is local and knows there are roadworks so why not look at different routes?"_



mr_hippo said:


> ... choice ...


 

You prefer another route, he chose this one and can do so every day for all it's got to do with anyone else.


GC


----------



## davefb (28 Sep 2012)

whats a section 59..?

he's stopped on a no-stopping, in an amazingly dangerous position.. he's threatened someone ,driven dangerously by tailgaiting like that, driven dangerously by crossing across on the cyclist....

what do you have to do to get arrested?

I used to commute across that bridge... thats about the least traffic I've ever seen on it...


----------



## sabian92 (28 Sep 2012)

davefb said:


> whats a section 59..?
> 
> he's stopped on a no-stopping, in an amazingly dangerous position.. he's threatened someone ,driven dangerously by tailgaiting like that, driven dangerously by crossing across on the cyclist....
> 
> ...


 
I commute across it now but on the path. I've seen 3 people in my 20 years of living here ride over it on the road and all I can say it you're a lot braver than me! It's so dangerous - 2/3 of people I've seen have been touring (panniers etc) so they obviously weren't local, maybe doing a LEJOG or JOGLE and you can see the fear on their faces. The other guy was doing about 30 on a roadbike (all the gear, sky kit etc) so he wasn't too bad.

I only ride 3 1/2 miles each way but that bridge is by far the worst of it.


----------



## davefb (28 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I commute across it now but on the path. I've seen 3 people in my 20 years of living here ride over it on the road and all I can say it you're a lot braver than me! It's so dangerous - 2/3 of people I've seen have been touring (panniers etc) so they obviously weren't local, maybe doing a LEJOG or JOGLE and you can see the fear on their faces. The other guy was doing about 30 on a roadbike (all the gear, sky kit etc) so he wasn't too bad.
> 
> I only ride 3 1/2 miles each way but that bridge is by far the worst of it.


oops better correct this,, when "I" commuted, that would be from bolton.... it was long enough driving  ...... though normally it was stop-start, was a few years back when they were fixing it....


----------



## CopperCyclist (28 Sep 2012)

davefb said:


> whats a section 59..?
> 
> he's stopped on a no-stopping, in an amazingly dangerous position.. he's threatened someone ,driven dangerously by tailgaiting like that, driven dangerously by crossing across on the cyclist....
> 
> ...



Section 59 is a notice put on a car that a complaint has been made that the car was bing used in an antisocial manner. Most usually utilised for the boy racers doing donuts in the local Tesco car park. If a driver has been issued with one warning, the next complaint gets the car seized, and the driver has to fork out about 150 quid (varies via recovery agent) to get it back.

I suspect the fact that the reporting cyclist asked for simply 'an apology' from the driver factored strongly into his lack of arrest.


----------



## davefb (28 Sep 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> I suspect the fact that the reporting cyclist asked for simply 'an apology' from the driver factored strongly into his lack of arrest.


 
would that mainly be because the "only evidence" was the video ? because surely stopping on that section of road, is an offence ? let alone pushing across like that..

I mean, surely it's at least a parking fine!

I suppose it just goes down to cost/benefit.. and that the section 59 route gets whats wanted , that he wont do it again....


----------



## CopperCyclist (28 Sep 2012)

davefb said:


> would that mainly be because the "only evidence" was the video ? because surely stopping on that section of road, is an offence ? let alone pushing across like that..
> 
> I mean, surely it's at least a parking fine!
> 
> I suppose it just goes down to cost/benefit.. and that the section 59 route gets whats wanted , that he wont do it again....



I think the video could have been successfully used in a careless driving charge if that was what the cyclist wanted. Or to support a driver improvement scheme.

Whether the CPS would agree with me is another matter, but if it was me, and it was what the cyclist had requested, I'd had reported the driver and put it through.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2012)

Nissan CashCow,,, says it all


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Sep 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Hi All,
> 
> A friend has just pointed this out on facebook:
> 
> ...




Cyclist and car driver - both idiots. The car driver probably more so, but none of that needed to happen - and wouldn't have if the cyclist had shown a little more consideration...


----------



## billy1561 (28 Sep 2012)

ohnovino said:


> I've ridden with traffic on Runcorn Bridge a few times, and I won't be doing it again. I twice had cars pull alongside me in the next lane then just move across and shove me out the way, and I got some very close overtakes form HGVs. The approach roads aren't much fun either, especially if you're heading Runcorn-to-Widnes. So now if I go that way I'm a crazy rule breaker and ride on the footpath, along with perhaps 99% of the other cyclists who use the bridge.
> 
> BTW, my favourite place to cross the Mersey is cutting through a little business park by Warrington Bank Quay station - cars can't get through the bus gate so it's very quiet.


I use that bus gate too thanks to a lad on here who wisened me up. Not much use if you live or work in Rincorn tho..


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2012)

4F said:


> I very much doubt he popped over from Thailand.


Its just that he's "advising" cyclists over here (UK) & in the same area(approx), that I thought he lived in the area. As a result of actually living in the area he was offering upto date advice!


----------



## mr_hippo (28 Sep 2012)

It is true that I have not cycled over the bridge for years. My first crossing of the Runcorn Gap was on the transporter bridge just before the road bridge was completed and l think it was on my first ride to Delamere. At one point in time there were actually 3 ways of crossing the Runcorn Gap - the road bridge, the transporter and the footbridge on the railway bridge. The last transporter car service was about 10:30 from Runcorn so the only way to get home was to walk across the railway footbridge. I do not know exactly when the footbridge closed but I'm guessing it was mid 60s. On a club run in the late 80s, we had a chance meeting with one of the engineers from British Rail and broached the subject of re-opening the footbridge but were told that it was not a viable project.
I do not know the official status of the footpath over the road bridge but has become through custom and use over the last 50 years shared use.


classic33 said:


> Maybe its time you gave serious consideration to your failing second sight. The cones as you pointed out were there, what cannot be seen in the video is when they started. Where they end, you can see quite clearly. You wish to give directions as to what someone should do. "_How could you or anyone else who has no knowledge of the area help me? You do not know the terrain, road surface and camber, traffic flow or density." _give advice on a change of route without knowing what that change will involve. Other than it takes the cyclist out of the drivers way, in this case.


When the video starts, the cyclist is already in the coned area. The change of route I suggested was to use the footpath.


ohnovino said:


> BTW, my favourite place to cross the Mersey is cutting through a little business park by Warrington Bank Quay station - cars can't get through the bus gate so it's very quiet.


I am also familiar with that route but there was/is a ferry boat service up river around Thelwell. I last used it in the late 80s; it could hold about 3 cyclists and bikes.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2012)

Cones are normally used to mark out/off lanes that they may be working on/in. If we go on the simple basis that there are cones in the road, a fair share of major roads, near me would have them at some part of the day.

Cyclist is passed as the cones come to an end. Drivers first, legal!, chance to get past perhaps?


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Cyclist and car driver - both idiots. The car driver probably more so, but none of that needed to happen - and wouldn't have if the cyclist had shown a little more consideration...


What would you suggest the cyclist did differently in order to be more considerate and less of an idiot?


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> What would you suggest the cyclist did differently in order to be more considerate and less of an idiot?


 
1. Find an alternative route. But failing that...
2. Not attempt an overtake on the outside of stationary/slow moving traffic
3. Keep left
4. After the bridge, get out of the middle of the road (see '3' above) to allow traffic past - there's plenty of room.

Doesn't excuse the driver's actions, but the whole thing could have been avoided.


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> 1. Find an alternative route. But failing that...
> 2. Not attempt an overtake on the outside of stationary/slow moving traffic
> 3. Keep left
> 4. After the bridge, get out of the middle of the road (see '3' above) to allow traffic past - there's plenty of room.
> ...


1) Why should he?
2) Bit of an odd move that I agree, but he didn't overtake anyone did he?
3) And encourage a close/dangerous overtake?
4) Looked to me as if he was moving to reasonable secondary pretty much as soon as the cones ended then got pushed to the side by the car. Even if he wasn't, whats wrong with the car/cars using the outside lane to overtake him?


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Sep 2012)

What I've learned from this thread is that it's ok to endanger the life of another road user if they 'hold you up'.


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> 1) Why should he?


You asked me for my suggestion, and I told you.



Mugshot said:


> 2) Bit of an odd move that I agree, but he didn't overtake anyone did he?


No. But anyone comtemplating such a move is clearly an idiot with a death wish.



Mugshot said:


> 3) And encourage a close/dangerous overtake?


The guy already said there was no room to overtake. Moving left would have at least acknowledged that he was in the way of faster moving traffic.



Mugshot said:


> 4) Looked to me as if he was moving to reasonable secondary pretty much as soon as the cones ended then got pushed to the side by the car. Even if he wasn't, whats wrong with the car/cars using the outside lane to overtake him?


It didn't look like that to me.


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> You asked me for my suggestion, and I told you.
> 
> No. But anyone comtemplating such a move is clearly an idiot with a death wish.
> 
> ...


Ok, but again, why should he?
Maybe, maybe he was checking to see how free flowing the traffic was to see if there was a filtering opportunity.
Why? The traffic behind can see he's slower moving whether he's in primary or secondary. Whos way was he in exactly?
Well it looked like it to me, so maybe we'll agree to disagree, however, that doesn't answer why the vehicles behind couldn't have used the outside lane does it?


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Ok, but again, why should he?


 
Other than the fact that the bridge looks like a total death trap for cyclists, there's no reason why he should or shouldn't. It was my suggestion - and if you remember, you asked me for my suggestion. It's what I would have done.




Mugshot said:


> Why? *The traffic behind* can see he's slower moving whether he's in primary or secondary. Whos way was he in exactly?


 
see the bold bit...


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

The bicycle is traffic, he has as much right to be on the road as the motor vehicles. Whilst he may be slower moving and be human powered that doesn't mean he's not allowed to be on that particular stretch of road. It is very unlikely that the car driver would have acted in that way to a road sweeper or a tractor or certain of the contractors vehicles which would have likely been traveling at a similar or lesser speeds to the cyclist, so what's the difference? Do you think one of those should take any of the actions which you've suggested, and if not why not?
You're not subservient to other traffic because they are faster or because they pay road tax () it's not about being an urban warrior either as someone else has suggested, the guy on the bike had the right to make his journey without the fear of bullying by other road users simply because they felt superior because they're in a bigger/quicker vehicle. Do you think the journeys of the car drivers were more important?
I'm all for consideration and politeness between road users, I'll do my best not to impede other road users unnecessarily, but if it's a choice between my safety and their convenience I know which wins, and I would suggest that if you feel you are an inconvenience to other road users you either think again or quit cycling


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> and I would suggest that if you feel you are an inconvenience to other road users you either think again or quit cycling


 
Fortunately, I don't feel that way - that's a relief...


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Fortunately, I don't feel that way - that's a relief...


Good for you 
I don't suppose the cyclist in the video thought he was an inconvenience either.
Thanks for ignoring the questions I asked BTW


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Thanks for ignoring the questions I asked BTW


 
which one - the rhetorical one, or the one that made no sense..??


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> which one - the rhetorical one, or the one that made no sense..??


*Sigh*
Ok then, here you go.
Why couldn't the other traffic have overtaken him in the outside lane once they were clear of the cones?
Just because he's slower moving doesn't lessen the fact he's allowed to be there and is part of the traffic, so who exactly is he holding up?
What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?
Would the motorist have acted in the same way to any other slower moving vehicle?
Do you think that any other slower moving vehicle, E.G. tractor, road sweeper or contractors vehicle, should have taken any of the actions you have suggested?
If you don't think any other slower moving vehicle should have taken any of the actions you've suggested, why don't you?
Do you think the journey the motorist was taking was more important than the cyclists?
You seem to have missed those


----------



## Drago (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?


Erm... a bicycle?


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Why couldn't the other traffic have overtaken him in the outside lane once they were clear of the cones?


 
It did - or could have done. Except for the guy who stopped.



Mugshot said:


> Just because he's slower moving doesn't lessen the fact he's allowed to be there and is part of the traffic, so who exactly is he holding up?


 
Other traffic




Mugshot said:


> What's the difference between the cyclist and any other slow moving vehicle?


 
Width



Mugshot said:


> Would the motorist have acted in the same way to any other slower moving vehicle?


 
Nobody knows - except the motorist concerned.




Mugshot said:


> Do you think that any other slower moving vehicle, E.G. tractor, road sweeper or contractors vehicle, should have taken any of the actions you have suggested?


 
No, for the reasons given above.



Mugshot said:


> If you don't think any other slower moving vehicle should have taken any of the actions you've suggested, why don't you?


 
Duplicate question. See above.



Mugshot said:


> Do you think the journey the motorist was taking was more important than the cyclists?


 
It is not possible to establish the relative importance of either journey.

Good fun though, keep it up...


----------



## sabian92 (29 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Other than the fact that the bridge looks like a total death trap for cyclists, there's no reason why he should or shouldn't. It was my suggestion - and if you remember, you asked me for my suggestion. It's what I would have done.
> 
> see the bold bit...


 
It is. I'm not one for getting cyclists off the road (obviously!) but this is one of the places that they should be banned from like motorways. Further down it turns into a dual carriageway of 70mph but people are doing that well before the change in speed limit. Really dangerous stretch of road - like I said previously, only seen 3 people do it and I ride over the footpath because it's that dangerous.


----------



## Mugshot (29 Sep 2012)

@ b'n'y I don't want to use up too much internet space by re-quoting everything.
There was no need for the cyclist to move over to the left immediately after the cones finished (although I think he was on his way) as you suggested he needed to because, as you have stated above, the traffic was perfectly able to pass in the outside lane. I'm glad we agree 
As you have said yourself the lane was not wide enough to perform a safe overtake, so the cyclists position is irrelevant, the fact that he is narrower than any other slower moving vehicle is also irrelevant, there is either sufficient room for a safe pass or there isn't and in this case, as you have said yourself, there isn't. I'm glad we agree again 
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the motorists journey was not of any particular urgency considering he found the time to pull over for a chat to the cyclist, I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that he wouldn't have pulled across any other motorised vehicle and forced them to stop in order to remonstrate with them and just for good measure I'm going to go out on yet another limb and suggest that you would guess the same.
It would appear that you feel that if you're in/on a slow moving vehicle and you are wider than a bicycle you are not an inconvenience, even if you are travelling at approximately the same rate, if you are the same width as a bicycle, I.E. a bicycle, you should kowtow to faster moving traffic. We don't agree on that 


sabian92 said:


> It is. I'm not one for getting cyclists off the road (obviously!) but this is one of the places that they should be banned from like motorways. Further down it turns into a dual carriageway of 70mph but people are doing that well before the change in speed limit. Really dangerous stretch of road - like I said previously, only seen 3 people do it and I ride over the footpath because it's that dangerous.


It may well, as you suggest, be a particularly hairy piece of road to negotiate, as it happens I am actually quite familiar with Runcorn bridge, however is the best course of action to ban cyclists from it or to improve the thing to make it safer for cyclists to use?


----------



## black'n'yellow (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> @ b'n'y I don't want to use up too much internet space by re-quoting everything.


 
As you can see, I have no such concerns. Anyway, it helps with clarity.



Mugshot said:


> There was no need for the cyclist to move over to the left immediately after the cones finished (although I think he was on his way) as you suggested he needed to because, as you have stated above, the traffic was perfectly able to pass in the outside lane. I'm glad we agree


 
Read it back - that doesn't even make sense.



Mugshot said:


> As you have said yourself the lane was not wide enough to perform a safe overtake, so the cyclists position is irrelevant, the fact that he is narrower than any other slower moving vehicle is also irrelevant, there is either sufficient room for a safe pass or there isn't and in this case, as you have said yourself, there isn't. I'm glad we agree again


 
Sorry to interrupt your self-satisfaction, but we don't agree actually. This is all about 'how it looks' - and the fact that the cyclist is persistently in the middle of the road would imply to me that he didn't give a sh1t about other road users behind him. At least if he had attempted to ride closer to the left, rather than in the middle of the lane, it might have given an indication that he was at least sensitive to the situation that he was putting himself and others in.



Mugshot said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the motorists journey was not of any particular urgency considering he found the time to pull over for a chat to the cyclist, I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that he wouldn't have pulled across any other motorised vehicle and forced them to stop in order to remonstrate with them and just for good measure I'm going to go out on yet another limb and suggest that you would guess the same.


 
More guesswork.



Mugshot said:


> It would appear that you feel that if you're in/on a slow moving vehicle and you are wider than a bicycle you are not an inconvenience, even if you are travelling at approximately the same rate, if you are the same width as a bicycle, I.E. a bicycle, you should kowtow to faster moving traffic. We don't agree on that


 
Different situations demand different behaviour. But yes, in that situation that is EXACTLY what I would have done (the other alternative being not riding across the bridge in the first place). Doing that would almost certainly have avoided the confrontation, the resulting video and the inevitable and rather sanctimonious defence of what is, after all, some pretty idiotic and suicidal riding.


----------



## sabian92 (29 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> It may well, as you suggest, be a particularly hairy piece of road to negotiate, as it happens I am actually quite familiar with Runcorn bridge, however is the best course of action to ban cyclists from it or to improve the thing to make it safer for cyclists to use?



I can't see how - you can't widen it to put cycle lanes on it, or anything else for that matter. The best that cyclists can do is ride on the footpath.


----------



## Bill-H (29 Sep 2012)

A bridge i was already advised to avoid on my lejog and back and i wont be using it


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Sep 2012)

Clearly no car can safely overtake the cyclist during the bridge and roadworks section. Why then does the cyclist think it's safe to attempt to overtake a car under the same conditions? Far too many cyclists claim to want the same rights as other road users yet they want all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that being a cyclist brings.


----------



## on the road (30 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> It is. I'm not one for getting cyclists off the road (obviously!) but this is one of the places that they should be banned from like motorways. Further down it turns into a dual carriageway of 70mph but people are doing that well before the change in speed limit. Really dangerous stretch of road - like I said previously, only seen 3 people do it and I ride over the footpath because it's that dangerous.


60 mph, but there's an exit before that.


----------



## sabian92 (30 Sep 2012)

on the road said:


> 60 mph, but there's an exit before that.



It's 50 then it goes to 70. It's a normal dual carriageway.


----------



## MrJamie (30 Sep 2012)

The driving was awful and horribly aggressive, the driver deserves everything he gets in this instance, but in terms of exercising our right to cycle wherever were legally entitled (not that this is necessarily relevant to the cyclist in the video) sometimes i don't think its as simple as who's in the right, theres no point being in the right if you're 6ft under.


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> It may well, as you suggest, be a particularly hairy piece of road to negotiate, as it happens I am actually quite familiar with Runcorn bridge, however is the best course of action to ban cyclists from it or to improve the thing to make it safer for cyclists to use?


What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge. How about a new ferry service? You would have to spend millions dredging up years of mud and slutch and, by the way, the Manchester Ship Canal is in the way!
There are plans for the old bridge wnen the new one opens - http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/about-the-mersey-gateway-project/future-of-the-silver-jubilee-bridge/


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Read it back - that doesn't even make sense.


I apologise if you didn't understand me, I'll try again for you.
In post #39 you state that the cyclist is both stupid and inconsiderate. You then suggest that one of the ways he demonstrates that is by not pulling to left immediately after the cones, see #45. However in post #57 you tell us that the traffic which had been behind the cyclist could have and indeed did overtake the cyclist after the cones ended by using the outside lane. I fail to see how he was being inconsiderate to the motorists behind if they were able to safely overtake him.


black'n'yellow said:


> Sorry to interrupt your self-satisfaction, but we don't agree actually. This is all about 'how it looks' - and the fact that the cyclist is persistently in the middle of the road would imply to me that he didn't give a sh1t about other road users behind him. At least if he had attempted to ride closer to the left, rather than in the middle of the lane, it might have given an indication that he was at least sensitive to the situation that he was putting himself and others in.


Maybe he should doff his cap and tug his forelock whilst he rides over on the left so there's no mistaking that he's very sorry for being on the road.


black'n'yellow said:


> But yes, in that situation that is EXACTLY what I would have done


You do know what kowtow means don't you? There is not a hierarchy of vehicles based on size and speed. You seem to believe that other slow moving vehicles do not need to find an alternative route or offer apology to the drivers which they are travelling more slowly than because they are wider than a bicycle. The cars behind the bicycle are not more important than him because they are larger, faster or noisier and neither are the occupants.
If you were saying that you felt it was a dangerous section of road and it was in the interests of the cyclists safety to avoid it I would understand the sentiments, but you seem to be more concerned with not offending the motorists. You appear to be suggesting that the cyclist is inconsiderate because he is a slower moving vehicle. The silver Focus in front of the cyclist disappears from view at the 53 second mark of the video, the cyclist exits the road works at approximately 1min18secs, I'll leave you to work out how inconsiderate he was being. BTW the car driver stopped to remonstrate with the cyclist at the 1min30sec mark and drove off at the 2min17sec mark.
Discretion may be advisable on that section of road, but the cyclist is not inconsiderate for using it. He may be stupid, but he is not stupid because another road user chose to try to bully him for having the temerity to travel at a slower pace than that particular driver found acceptable.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

mr_hippo said:


> What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge. How about a new ferry service? You would have to spend millions dredging up years of mud and slutch and, by the way, the Manchester Ship Canal is in the way!
> There are plans for the old bridge wnen the new one opens - http://www.merseygateway.co.uk/about-the-mersey-gateway-project/future-of-the-silver-jubilee-bridge/


I'm not sure but I think you may have wanted to quote sabian92 #58


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> I can't see how - you can't widen it to put cycle lanes on it, or anything else for that matter. The best that cyclists can do is ride on the footpath.


As far as I can see from the posts here the footpath is not shared use, perhaps a change there would be a start.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

MrJamie said:


> The driving was awful and horribly aggressive, the driver deserves everything he gets in this instance, but in terms of exercising our right to cycle wherever were legally entitled (not that this is necessarily relevant to the cyclist in the video) sometimes i don't think its as simple as who's in the right, theres no point being in the right if you're 6ft under.


I agree, but there is a difference between something which is inadvisable and something which is inconsiderate which is what black'n'yellow is arguing.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 Sep 2012)

The cyclist is one of those headcam warriors who go out looking for confrontation.

But the motorist is the idiot for falling for it.


----------



## sabian92 (30 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> As far as I can see from the posts here the footpath is not shared use, perhaps a change there would be a start.



It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.

It's part of NCN562 anyway, it says cyclists dismount but nobody ever does.



mr_hippo said:


> What a wonderful idea - banning cyclists! Now please tell me how a cyclist is to get from West Bank, Widnes to Runcorn Old Town? As I have already pointed out, he could go via Warrington or via Liverpool and British Rail will not repair the footpath part of the rail bridge.



There is a footpath along side the bridge. It is perfectly suitable to ride over.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.
> 
> It's part of NCN562 anyway, it says cyclists dismount but nobody ever does.


Ah right, ok. How about changing the speed limit and/or putting up big signs saying "Cyclists are allowed on the road you know!" What other options do cyclists have to get to the other side?


----------



## sabian92 (30 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> Ah right, ok. How about changing the speed limit and/or putting up big signs saying "Cyclists are allowed on the road you know!" What other options do cyclists have to get to the other side?



It's a 40 zone anyway - they wouldn't reduce it any further.

There is the footpath, or failing that you have to get the train to Lime Street in Liverpool or ride via Warrington. Not ideal.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> It isn't wide enough to make shared use, it's 4 feet wide.


 


sabian92 said:


> There is a footpath along side the bridge. It is perfectly suitable to ride over.


I don't understand your edit sorry.


----------



## sabian92 (30 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I don't understand your edit sorry.



You can ride over it but it is only a narrow footpath, you aren't technically allowed you ride over it, even though it's part of the NCN routes.


----------



## Big boy (30 Sep 2012)

i have no sound but im sure i woulda pulled him outa the car by his hair lol, there are some mouthy people in the world.


----------



## mr_hippo (30 Sep 2012)

sabian92 said:


> There is a footpath along side the bridge. It is perfectly suitable to ride over.


If you had bothered to read any of my posts, you will see that I have cycled over there since the bridge was opened; I even told you where to get off on the Widnes side "Use the shared use footpath. Cross the bridge, stop at the first bus stop, cut throught to Irwell Street and then left onto Mersey Road".
As for its status as 'shared use' - officially it may not be but through custom and usage it is; a group of us in the mid 60s were advised by the police that it is alright to cycle on the footpath..


----------



## sabian92 (30 Sep 2012)

I have read them. I just pointed it out.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Sep 2012)

Mugshot said:


> If you were saying that you felt it was a dangerous section of road and it was in the interests of the cyclists safety to avoid it I would understand the sentiments,


 
congrats fella - that's exactly what I was saying at the start. I'll leave the rest if you don't mind, because I find that arguing with you is rather depressing. But, I'll leave you with my original thought, which was that the cyclist and the driver are both idiots and that the whole situation could have been avoided with the application of a little more common sense from the cyclist. So stick that in your sanctimonious pipe and smoke it...


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Good fun though, keep it up...


 


black'n'yellow said:


> I'll leave the rest if you don't mind, because I find that arguing with you is rather depressing.


 
Pfft, you soon changed your mind


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Sep 2012)

It was fun - until you started going over the same stuff repeatedly. I prefer arguments to progress. Anyway, I've just noticed your sig - saves me the bother....


----------



## Mugshot (30 Sep 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> It was fun - until you started going over the same stuff repeatedly. I prefer arguments to progress. Anyway, I've just noticed your sig - saves me the bother....


You're right of course and I was conscious that I seemed to be having to repeat myself, but you said you were struggling to understand so I felt the polite thing to do was to try explain myself more clearly


----------



## disabled rider (7 Oct 2012)

Mugshot said:


> The bicycle is traffic, he has as much right to be on the road as the motor vehicles. Whilst he may be slower moving and be human powered that doesn't mean he's not allowed to be on that particular stretch of road. It is very unlikely that the car driver would have acted in that way to a road sweeper or a tractor or certain of the contractors vehicles which would have likely been traveling at a similar or lesser speeds to the cyclist, so what's the difference? Do you think one of those should take any of the actions which you've suggested, and if not why not?
> You're not subservient to other traffic because they are faster or because they pay road tax () it's not about being an urban warrior either as someone else has suggested, the guy on the bike had the right to make his journey without the fear of bullying by other road users simply because they felt superior because they're in a bigger/quicker vehicle. Do you think the journeys of the car drivers were more important?
> I'm all for consideration and politeness between road users, I'll do my best not to impede other road users unnecessarily, but if it's a choice between my safety and their convenience I know which wins, and I would suggest that if you feel you are an inconvenience to other road users you either think again or quit cycling


 
Completely agree with you.

This is also what I been trying to address when dealing with disability right to use side walks

What I noticed about vid was he mentioned doing 30, what speed was the road set for through construction? Point I am trying to make is I doubt he was holding traffic at all. Based on the posted speed limit through construction.

By riding center, "if legal", forces the following driver to obey the law of passing unless, they run over him outright. What he did say with subtitles " there was no "LEGAL" viable passing for cars along that stretch" I think his attempt to pass that gray car was the rider trying to prove that fact. That there is not enough room.

So if he had moved left, as some stated he should have, you start to get into the area about being a increased risk for able bodies, garrenteed kill, If you lack any of your senses like hearing. lets say that was a deaf rider, car behind is getting P'O'ed off honking. what good is that to deaf rider if he/she cannot hear said honking. or sound of the car if not honking. 30 or less, through construction on bridge here in the states is usually the speed limit. What if that had been a tadpole? which is wider than standard bikes and being below the height of say a dash of a truck with just a flag?(some bad drivers might mistaken that flag as a sign for construction if the tadpole was all the way left). doing 30 through there? being left death for sure, regardless of type of rider.

Note how many people would seriously take a cam with them just for the heck of it?

Only time I would take a cam is to address serious issues or specific trouble spots or policy in general.

And the whole thing of telling the rider to take the long way? why not make the driver take the long way, with the fact they don't have to waste personal energy unlike a peddler on a cycle. not all cyclist are fit as a marathoner. I am in this category despite all my transportation being by bicycle..


----------



## disabled rider (7 Oct 2012)

Drago said:


> Erm... a bicycle?


Bicyclist have the same rights as a car here most areas in the states, I would assume its same over the pond. How it is powered, is of no consequence in regards to the equal right of using the road.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (7 Oct 2012)

disabled rider said:


> Bicyclist have the same rights as a car here most areas in the states, I would assume its same over the pond. How it is powered, is of no consequence in regards to the equal right of using the road.


There is the law, your rights and then there is your safety. The first two mean nothing if the latter is compromised.


----------



## Drago (7 Oct 2012)

disabled rider said:


> Bicyclist have the same rights as a car here most areas in the states, I would assume its same over the pond. How it is powered, is of no consequence in regards to the equal right of using the road.


It is the same here, and I never suggested to the contrary.


----------

