# Can someone help me?



## Matthew_T (12 Sep 2011)

http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m562/monkeysnutscom/Videos/?action=view¤t=RF05EES-Veryagressiveconfrontation.mp4 

Can someone please view the video and tell me what the full name of the company on the van is. It is 'The ....... .............. Company'. I need this information to be able to report the incident to the police. I will be contacting the company as well. 
I would greatly appreciate some clarification. 

The video is a bit fuzzy, but I would suggest that you view it full screen to be able to read the writing on the van.


----------



## ChrisJ (13 Sep 2011)

Perchance it's "The Weekend Preservation Company", providers of gardening services, based in Prestatyn.

Chris J


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

ChrisJ said:


> Perchance it's "The Weekend Preservation Company", providers of gardening services, based in Prestatyn.
> 
> Chris J



Thanks Chris, that has helped a lot!


----------



## snorri (13 Sep 2011)

Why contact the company if you are going to report the incident to the police? You could just be getting a reply from the angry driver. 
The text on video says you can hear the engine being revved, I'm not saying it wasn't, but it is not audible on the video.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Hi Mathew - if i understand correctly the driver got upset that you were cycling in the middle of the road thereby holding him up. He perceived you riding in the middle of the road as totally out of order and that you were doing it deliberately to wind him up. Obviously it goes without saying that the driver is wrong but what do you do ? Woudnt it be better just to ride in secondary ? Or have i misunderstood something. You handled the confrontataion well btw , didnt escalate the situation.


----------



## yello (13 Sep 2011)

Let it go Matthew. 

Personally, I can't see the police even talking to the chap on the basis of that clip and I think you're only going to get yourself more wound up by trying to pursue it. The guy's a gobby (little?) tw*t (maybe he was having a bad day, who knows?)... the point is that you did nothing wrong. He just got p*ssed off because he was held up... but not that held up to not have the time to wait for you and give you abuse! 

Forget it. The guy's a idiot and, sadly, we all have to deal with idiot's from time to time. And, I have to say, you dealt with that idiot perfectly in my opinion.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Hi Mathew - if i understand correctly the driver got upset that you were cycling in the middle of the road thereby holding him up. He perceived you riding in the middle of the road as totally out of order and that you were doing it deliberately to wind him up. Obviously it goes without saying that the driver is wrong but what do you do ? *Woudnt it be better just to ride in secondary ?* Or have i misunderstood something. You handled the confrontataion well btw , didnt escalate the situation.




i don't understand why you say this, the bloke is obviously deranged to 'stalk' a cyclist, then park up, run across the road in a threatening manner. 

the driver has broken common law, i.e., he made the cyclist feel intimidated or in in fear of being physically assaulted.

i don't think that the op did anything wrong, even if he did, so what? he's not the police or is vigilanteism ok in your book?


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> i don't understand why you say this, the bloke is obviously deranged to 'stalk' a cyclist, then park up, run across the road in a threatening manner.
> 
> the driver has broken common law, i.e., he made the cyclist feel intimidated or in in fear of being physically assaulted.
> 
> i don't think that the op did anything wrong, even if he did, so what? he's not the police or is vigilanteism ok in your book?



If your choice is : a - continue cycling in primary and further aggravate the angry van driver or B - move over to secondary and let the angry van driver pass. Personally i would choose option B. This is not condoning vigilanteism , it is just doing the sensible thing. You might like to try it some day your not in your van.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> i don't understand why you say this, the bloke is obviously deranged to 'stalk' a cyclist, then park up, run across the road in a threatening manner.


well quite.

Great turn of speed in the middle of the vid, though! 

And where's the church? Great tower!


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If your choice is : a - continue cycling in primary and further aggravate the angry van driver or B - move over to secondary and let the angry van driver pass. Personally i would choose option B. This is not condoning vigilanteism , it is just doing the sensible thing.* You might like to try it some day your not in your van.*



eh? i don't have a van.


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (13 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> well quite.
> 
> Great turn of speed in the middle of the vid, though!
> 
> *And where's the church? Great tower!*



don't get this bit.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

Hopefully the officer who deals with it has some cycling knowledge and it does not end up with you being prosecuted "for getting in the drivers way", who obviously was not in a rush as they had time to turn around and stop for a chat.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> Hopefully the officer who deals with it has some cycling knowledge and it does not end up with you being prosecuted "for getting in the drivers way", who obviously was not in a rush as they had time to turn around and stop for a chat.



Aside from the obvious handbags where is the stuff that warrants the intervention of the police ?
Are we saying that the van driver should get prosecuted for dangerous driving or threatening behaviour ?


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

Personally I would send a letter to the company rather than the police.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Aside from the obvious handbags where is the stuff that warrants the intervention of the police ?
> Are we saying that the van driver should get prosecuted for dangerous driving or threatening behaviour ?



The OP has stated they are reporting it to the police, their decision, I was merely commenting on the fact that some people may view the incident differently, especially when they have no cycling knowledge/experience.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Aside from the obvious handbags where is the stuff that warrants the intervention of the police ?
> Are we saying that the van driver should get prosecuted for dangerous driving or threatening behaviour ?



I would see it as a public order offence at best TBH.


----------



## oldfatfool (13 Sep 2011)

Unfortunate that you was going in the same direction as the van after he had passed, he evidently had been stewing and decided to make an impression when you passed him.

I would definitely take it to the rozzers. From the video I wouldn't fault your riding position in front of the van, and for that matter the car in front/ traffic lights where holding you up as much as anything, it wasn't as if he could go anywhere had he passed you sooner!!. If you had been a car you wouldn't have been moving much quicker, closer to the guy in front maybe but thats about it. 

The bloke is most certainly I pay road tax to be here you don't type.

Edit it is ok peeps saying it isn't worth taking this matter further, BUT playing devils advocate, if both parties ride/ drive in the area often and a similar incident occurs then the driver (from his tone) could quite easily decide you need a sterner lesson having told you once.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

bromptonfb said:


> don't get this bit.



Dell is asking when the Church is as he likes its tower!!!


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Other than his abusive behaviour at the end, I cant see anything wrong in that video. I'd question why you were riding in primary at such a slow speed, especially if he was revving behind you as you say (I cannot hear it in the video though), it would have been in your own interest to just concede and let him past. I understand you have a right to be there, but there comes a point where you have to make a decision, exercise your rights, just because you have the right to, or concede and avoid a further conflict. The latter would have likely resulted in less long term grief.

Also he didnt stalk the OP, at least its certainly not evident in that video, it seems to me that the OP just happened to turn down the same street that the van had gone down and the driver decided to act like a cock.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

I have watched this a few times and I agree with Robert here. The the speeds you were riding Primary was the wrong place to be. Also the video gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you gave chase.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Edit it is ok peeps saying it isn't worth taking this matter further, BUT playing devils advocate, if both parties ride/ drive in the area often and a similar incident occurs then the driver (from his tone) could quite easily decide you need a sterner lesson having told you once.




Or of course the reverse and you could lay in wait and D lock the tosser next time


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have watched this a few times and I agree with Robert here. The the speeds you were riding Primary was the wrong place to be. Also the video gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that *you gave chase*.



With all of the incidents the OP has been posting recently and the nature of his blog, that wouldnt surprise me, looks like someone out looking for "incidents" and a reason to rant and rave to me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> With all of the incidents the OP has been posting recently and the nature of his blog, that wouldnt surprise me, looks like someone out looking for "incidents" and a reason to rant and rave to me.



I hope that that is not the case but you are right it does look that way


----------



## Trickydicky (13 Sep 2011)

Why were u following him?


----------



## oldfatfool (13 Sep 2011)

Rob/ Angel, I am new to cycling, especially road cycling after a 25 year lay off so please don't think I am trying to wind you up, serious question, Could you please explain to me why the op shouldn't be riding where he is prior to the van overtaking? From the video he appears to be on fairly narrow roads in town with parked cars either side, to pull over into the marked parking areas would invite the overtake when he (the op) would then have to pull back out to go round the next parked vehicle. I am unsure from the video as to wether he is unsighted to the frequency of the parked vehicles after the traffic lights, 

Edit: when he first mentions the revving engine then yeh I agree he could probably have pulled over, between the last parked car and the traffic lights, but in all honesty with the light at red I am not sure I would have.

Surely to chase after the vehicle would be pointless as if the guy hadn't parked up he wouldn't have stood a hope of catching him, wether the op made any gestures of camera to provoke the guy crossing the road and accosting him is of course unknown. It is interesting that at the start of the vid you hear the OP reading out the reg plate of the car in front, does that mean he was expecting something similar from that quarter?

Tbh I think the driver of the van is peeved that the op didn't let him pull out of the junction when they where waiting at the traffic lights at the beginning of the clip.


----------



## Thomk (13 Sep 2011)

I think the OP upset him from the very start by blocking his exit from the T junction just before the lights. I may have given way to him there out of courtesy.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Rob/ Angel, I am new to cycling, especially road cycling after a 25 year lay off so please don't think I am trying to wind you up, serious question, Could you please explain to me why the op shouldn't be riding where he is prior to the van overtaking? From the video he appears to be on fairly narrow roads in town with parked cars either side, to pull over into the marked parking areas would invite the overtake when he (the op) would then have to pull back out to go round the next parked vehicle. I am unsure from the video as to wether he is unsighted to the frequency of the parked vehicles after the traffic lights, when he first mentions the revving engine then yeh I agree he could have pulled over.
> 
> Surely to chase after the vehicle would be pointless as if the guy hadn't parked up he wouldn't have stood a hope of catching him, wether the op made any gestures of camera to provoke the guy crossing the road and accosting him is of course unknown. It is interesting that at the start of the vid you hear the OP reading out the reg plate of the car in front, does that mean he was expecting something similar from that quarter?



Videos such as this make it very hard to ascertain the cyclists position but based upon his relative position to the Silver car where he appears to be holding a line that would put him in the middle of the vehicle he could have held secondary and still ridden safely.

Riding in primary is a defencive position but also requires the rider to be able to maintain a respectable road speed. From the video it appears the the OP was riding rather too slowly. 

Also as he was aware of the vehicle behind him he "could" have used one of the gaps in the parked cars to allow the van to pass.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Rob/ Angel, I am new to cycling, especially road cycling after a 25 year lay off so please don't think I am trying to wind you up, serious question, Could you please explain to me why the op shouldn't be riding where he is prior to the van overtaking? From the video he appears to be on fairly narrow roads in town with parked cars either side, to pull over into the marked parking areas would invite the overtake when he (the op) would then have to pull back out to go round the next parked vehicle. I am unsure from the video as to wether he is unsighted to the frequency of the parked vehicles after the traffic lights,
> 
> Edit: when he first mentions the revving engine then yeh I agree he could probably have pulled over, between the last parked car and the traffic lights, but in all honesty with the light at red I am not sure I would have.
> 
> ...



In short, the OP had every right to ride in primary, BUT.... he also had plenty of oppertunity to reduce the tension between himself and the aggressive driver should he have wished too. He could have let the driver through, give him a nod and waved him through (it may or may not have helped, I made a mistake on sunday and tried to apologise with a hand gesture, the driver didnt respond how I had hoped, but in general it goes down well). He is not obligated to do so, but one would typically like to avoid conflict where possible and the OP clearly wasnt in much of a rush given his speed so letting the driver through wouldnt have been much of an inconvenience!

I would have just let the van out at that 1st set of lights, it would have been a conscientious decision, knowing that I would be holding him up in the coming section of road.

Plenty people chase after people in vehicles and catch up to them at the next set of lights etc to have a go.


----------



## Thomk (13 Sep 2011)

It's a very interesting video though. It gives a telling insight into how a certain cycling style can be perceived by a slightly stupid driver (that's most of us isn't it? We are after all just a bunch of mammals). This chap was convinced that the OP was taking the p*** and this perception is probably very common.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

I am still puzzled as to why the OP read out the index plate of car at the lights?


----------



## Hip Priest (13 Sep 2011)

Can't excuse the van driver's aggressive behaviour, but I feel the incident could've been avoided if you'd (a) let him out at the junction, as I would have or (b) moved into secondary to allow him to pass. FWIW it looks as if he'd parked up, then spotted you and decided to have a go, rather than stopping just to shout at you.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> Can't excuse the van driver's aggressive behaviour, but I feel the incident could've been avoided if you'd (a) let him out at the junction, as I would have or (b) moved into secondary to allow him to pass. *FWIW it looks as if he'd parked up, then spotted you and decided to have a go, rather than stopping just to shout at you.*



He was already stopped when the OP turned onto that street, so I think thats a safe assumption to make.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am still puzzled as to why the OP read out the index plate of car at the lights?



People tend to do that with helmet cams so that if the camera doesnt pick it up well they can still get the detail. But not for every random car, only in the event of something out of the ordinary happening


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> People tend to do that with helmet cams so that if the camera doesnt pick it up well they can still get the detail.



I appreciate that but unless it was pre-emptive I see no reason for doing it.

Cross post on your edit but we come to basically the same conclusion.


----------



## oldfatfool (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I would have just let the van out at that 1st set of lights, it would have been a conscientious decision, knowing that I would be holding him up in the coming section of road.



Thanks, Coming from being a heavy car user I will give greater thought to treating cars how I wish cyclists had treated me when I was driving (though it seemed to be infrequent) without compromising my own position. I suppose you would equate it to 'christian' motoring.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Thanks, Coming from _*being a heavy car user*_



Did you drive Volvo or the like then ?


----------



## uphillstruggler (13 Sep 2011)

can i say that in this situation, i would have leant my bike against the wall on the path and explained why i was riding the way i was, he may not have realised any potholes, car doors and the like that you did.

you never know, the guy may just have listened. he did make some sense when he said that if it was he who was cutting you up, he would have got plenty of shoot!

why not try calling the company and having a chat with guy and the help of hindsight, he may of calmed down by now.

I am not sure that it is a matter for the police anyway.

it did seem to me that you were riding quite wide, centrally up a two lane, one way road.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> In short, the OP had every right to ride in primary, BUT.... he also had plenty of oppertunity to reduce the tension between himself and the aggressive driver should he have wished too. He could have let the driver through, give him a nod and waved him through (it may or may not have helped, I made a mistake on sunday and tried to apologise with a hand gesture, the driver didnt respond how I had hoped, but in general it goes down well). He is not obligated to do so, but one would typically like to avoid conflict where possible and the OP clearly wasnt in much of a rush given his speed so letting the driver through wouldnt have been much of an inconvenience!
> 
> I would have just let the van out at that 1st set of lights, it would have been a conscientious decision, knowing that I would be holding him up in the coming section of road.



+1
Cyclists should cycle showing the same courtesy and consideration to motorists that they would like to be reciprocated to them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

uphillstruggler said:


> can i say that in this situation, i would have leant my bike against the wall on the path and explained why i was riding the way i was, he may not have realised any potholes, car doors and the like that you did.
> 
> you never know, the guy may just have listened. he did make some sense when he said that if it was he who was cutting you up, he would have got plenty of shoot!
> 
> ...



-1 The guy was spoiling for a fight and anything that he could have construed as an argument would have made matters worse. 

Now if the OP were 6'6" an MMA champ and built like the proverbial outhouse then maybe the driver wouldn't have said anything in the first place


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Dell is asking when the Church is as he likes its tower!!!




oh yeah...doh!! obvious as well...


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2011)

It's fairly difficult to tell anything from these video cams but you handled it very well Mathew, better than I would have if he started mouthing to me. Personally I'd have let him pass if I heard him revving and that's not a question of intimidation it's one of getting on with life. In the same way I doubt the Police would react to it, however a reasoned letter to the company, explaining why you were riding as you were might be of a lot more benefit. It may well be him, he may not agree but he will at least understand and maybe not react the same way next time.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

Trickydicky said:


> Why were u following him?



In this situation, I was genuinely not following him. That is the route I was going to take anyway, I was just hoping that he would disappear and allow me to continue on my ride.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> Edit: when he first mentions the revving engine then yeh I agree he could probably have pulled over, between the last parked car and the traffic lights, but in all honesty with the light at red I am not sure I would have.
> 
> Surely to chase after the vehicle would be pointless as if the guy hadn't parked up he wouldn't have stood a hope of catching him, wether the op made any gestures of camera to provoke the guy crossing the road and accosting him is of course unknown. It is interesting that at the start of the vid you hear the OP reading out the reg plate of the car in front, does that mean he was expecting something similar from that quarter?
> 
> Tbh I think the driver of the van is peeved that the op didn't let him pull out of the junction when they where waiting at the traffic lights at the beginning of the clip.




Yes, I could have possibly moved over after the parked car but I saw the red light in front and decided against it. I remained in primary for so long because there are always a lot of cars parked along there.
At the lights, I read out the reg plate of the car in front because they were simply abusing the ASL. At that point I was more concerned on that car, other than the van.
The van driver had not pulled out of the junction, I felt that he was not out enough to be cut up. I had right of way on that road, and he had not pulled out enough to cause an obstruction to me.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Yes, I could have possibly moved over after the parked car but I saw the red light in front and decided against it. I remained in primary for so long because there are always a lot of cars parked along there.
> At the lights, I read out the reg plate of the car in front because they were simply abusing the ASL. At that point I was more concerned on that car, other than the van.
> The van driver had not pulled out of the junction, I felt that he was not out enough to be cut up. *I had right of way on that road*, and he had not pulled out enough to cause an obstruction to me.



You had priority, you could have waived it with the prior knowledge of the area. You choose otherwise.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Sep 2011)

Pretty inconclusive IMO looks like 6 of one and half a dozen of the other to me. How any one would want to report that to anybody is beyond me.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

With reporting it to the company, I have found out that they only employ 3 people, therefore the person who I would be speaking to would most likely be the driver. I have decided not to cause any more problems with the driver because he seemed like the type who wouldnt take my explanation lightly.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> With reporting it to the company, I have found out that they only employ 3 people, therefore the person who I would be speaking to would most likely be the driver. I have decided not to cause any more problems with the driver because he seemed like the type who wouldnt take my explanation lightly.



Wise choice Matthew.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

uphillstruggler said:


> it did seem to me that you were riding quite wide, centrally up a two lane, one way road.



The lanes are very narrow, I dont like being in the gutter especially when it would encourage overtakes where the drivers wont get far.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> The lanes are very narrow, I dont like being in the gutter especially when it would encourage overtakes where the drivers wont get far.



Primary is centre of the lane. Secondary is about a meter from the curb or parked cars.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> +1
> Cyclists should cycle showing the same courtesy and consideration to motorists that they would like to be reciprocated to them.



If a driver was revving their engine in order to intimidate another road user out of the way then the driver does not deserve any courtesy or consideration.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> If a driver was revving their engine in order to intimidate another road user out of the way then the driver does not deserve any courtesy or consideration.



They werent doing that prior to the point at which courtesy could have been granted i.e. letting him out.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

To clarify my speed up: It does seem like I was riding slowly but I dont like swerving in and out of parked cars, I like to gradually pull out so that drivers can anticipate what I am doing. 

The angle of the camera lense does not make it look as if I was riding fast. I was not down that road. I was only doing about 16/17 mph. 

I am not normally slow, but I wasnt going to go faster and endanger myself just because the van was right up my back side.


----------



## fossyant (13 Sep 2011)

I'd shove a potatoe up the vans exhaust if you see it parked locally.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> They werent doing that prior to the point at which courtesy could have been granted.



Also there is an element of self preservation involved. Whilst I will not move out of secondary for anyone (other than on single carridgeway, hedged either side country lanes), I would not hold primary for an unnecessarily long period of time, especially if I felt that my life was being put in danger.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> I'd shove a potatoe up the vans exhaust if you see it parked locally.



Well I have his address.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> If a driver was revving their engine in order to intimidate another road user out of the way then the driver does not deserve any courtesy or consideration.



Thats exactly the logic car drivers use about cyclists - this fffin cyclist deliberately cycling in the middle of the road deliberately to wind me up etc etc. Unfortunately cyclists are the vulnerable ones and we all have to bear the consequences for the actions of a few.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Well I have his address.



I was warned once about making comments like this. If something does now happen you could be right in the cross hairs of a police investigation.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was warned once about making comments like this. If something does now happen you could be right in the cross hairs of a police investigation.



Yes and those cycle tracks in the garden of the deceased are not doing you any favours mathew.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was warned once about making comments like this. If something does now happen you could be right in the cross hairs of a police investigation.



I simply have the address that is registered with the company. I dont know if that is his personal address, but I wont bother mentioning it to the police. I will give them the company name and let them find out for themselves all the information.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I simply have the address that is registered with the company. I dont know if that is his personal address, but I wont bother mentioning it to the police. I will give them the company name and let them find out for themselves all the information.



You said you have his address in reference to "shove a potatoe up the vans exhaust".


----------



## Ron-da-Valli (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> If a driver was revving their engine in order to intimidate another road user out of the way then the driver does not deserve any courtesy or consideration.



Two wrongs don't make a right. The van driver was already angry ( rightly or wrongly) and to annoy him further deliberately would just put you in a vulnerable position. Personally I would have pulled in just before the 2nd lights just to get rid of him. however, nothing warrants his outburst which I would view as intimidation and threatening.
BTW the church tower is actually Rhyl town hall on Wellington St.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You said you have his address in reference to "shove a potatoe up the vans exhaust".



Well that was simply a joke, obviously I am not, it wasnt meant to be taken litterally.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Well that was simply a joke, obviously I am not, it wasnt meant to be taken litterally.



Thats your 2nd mistake mathew.
First - expecting white van drivers to be calm reasonable and normal.
Second - expecting everyone on this forum to have a sense of humour.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> They werent doing that prior to the point at which courtesy could have been granted i.e. letting him out.



We have no idea if the cyclist was in a position to let someone out or whether it was safe to do so. I virtually always give way or move over to the left to eliminate/reduce any delay to other faster road users, as long as it does not compromise my safety, I do not put my bike into primary position for no good reason or just out of spite.

Granted letting them out would have avoided the situation completely but getting wound up because your "stuck" behind a cyclist shows the drivers attitude to other vulnerable road users.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thats your 2nd mistake mathew.
> First - expecting white van drivers to be calm reasonable and normal.
> Second - expecting everyone on this forum to have a sense of humour.



Apollo, it is nothing to do with not having a sense of humour. What would now happen if a troll on this forum did just what Matthew eluded to?


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> *We have no idea if the cyclist was in a position to let someone out or whether it was safe to do so.* I virtually always give way or move over to the left to eliminate/reduce any delay to other faster road users, as long as it does not compromise my safety, I do not put my bike into primary position for no good reason or just out of spite.
> 
> Granted letting them out would have avoided the situation completely but getting wound up because your "stuck" behind a cyclist shows the drivers attitude to other vulnerable road users.



Unless there was some other mental road user behind him, off camera, the video shows quite clearly that he could have let the van out safely.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo, it is nothing to do with not having a sense of humour. What would now happen if a troll on this forum did just what Matthew eluded to?



No - just to make it clear - nobody is advocating sticking potatoes up car exhausts.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No - just to make it clear - nobody is advocating sticking potatoes up car exhausts.



If you read what I actually wrote you would see that I didn't suggest anyone was. Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others. GB155 and his ebay auction for example.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo, it is nothing to do with not having a sense of humour. What would now happen if a troll on this forum did just what Matthew eluded to?



I would wear surgical gloves and use an East Anglian potato to cover my tracks


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

4F said:


> I would wear surgical gloves and use an East Anglian potato to cover my tracks


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you read what I actually wrote you would see that I didn't suggest anyone was. Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others. *GB155 and his ebay auction for example.*



Wasnt this an isolated incident?

I only say this because it hardly looks very good for the forum if forum members feel the need to warn other people about this sort of thing in a non-generic way.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Unless there was some other mental road user behind him, off camera, the video shows quite clearly that he could have let the van out safely.



That's the thing about forward facing cameras, they do not show what is going on behind the wearer, it is assumption that it would have been safe to let the van out.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Wasnt this an isolated incident?
> 
> I only say this because it hardly looks very good for the forum if forum members feel the need to warn other people about this sort of thing in a non-generic way.



I might have been. It also might have been the tip of an iceberg. I remember a warning going out to the young kid building the SS that he had he his name on display and someone warned me about linking to my Flickr sight as I use my real name on it.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> That's the thing about forward facing cameras, they do not show what is going on behind the wearer, it is assumption that it would have been safe to let the van out.



All assumptions are not equal.


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I might have been. It also might have been the tip of an iceberg. I remember a warning going out to the young kid building the SS that he had he his name on display and someone warned me about linking to my Flickr sight as I use my real name on it.



I understand that, what I mean is, one could warn about things in a generic way "this is a public forum..... etc" rather than "some users of this forum seem to like to cause trouble". Maybe I'm being pinikity, just thinking about the image of the forum in a wider context and specific warnings about malicious forum users seems a bit strong in the negative


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I understand that, what I mean is, one could warn about things in a generic way "this is a public forum..... etc" rather than "some users of this forum seem to like to cause trouble". Maybe I'm being pinikity, just thinking about the image of the forum in a wider context and specific warnings about malicious forum users seems a bit strong in the negative



Valid point. "How about this is a public forum with some nutters on it?"


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Valid point. "How about this is a public forum with *some nutters* on it?"



Plural ?
So beyond "*GB155 and his ebay auction for example."
*Do you have any other examples to substantiate "Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others."
Other than this one isolated incident ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Plural ?
> So beyond "*GB155 and his ebay auction for example."
> *Do you have any other examples to substantiate "Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others."
> Other than this one isolated incident ?



You mean like people who talk about going on a machine gun rampage for a bit of Urban cleansing you mean?


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You mean like people who talk about going on a machine gun rampage for a bit of Urban cleansing you mean?



No.
I mean other than the 1 example do you have any other instances to substantiate your comment - "Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others."

Its an important point - as has been pointed out it characterises the forum in a negative way.
I dont think your comment is accurate and i do not think it accurately reflects the forum.
However i may be wrong - if you do have more examples id be interested as im totally unaware of any such goings on.


----------



## adds21 (13 Sep 2011)

I'm getting bored of all this bickering, again.

You're both arguing about something which should be common sense. It appears to be happening more and more around here.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> I'm getting bored of all this bickering, again.
> 
> You're both arguing about something which should be common sense. It appears to be happening more and more around here.



+ 1m

Those 2 at it again


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> That's the thing about forward facing cameras, they do not show what is going on behind the wearer, it is assumption that it would have been safe to let the van out.



It was safe to let the van out. I had noone behind me. I was just concentrating on the car waiting at the lights because they had crosses the ASL. If I had known that I would be waiting at the lights for longer, I would have let him out because I wouldnt have got very far.


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Plural ?
> So beyond "GB155 and his ebay auction for example."
> Do you have any other examples to substantiate "Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others."
> Other than this one isolated incident ?




With all due respect it's far from just auction wrecking that members and now former members have been causing me issues with, that said the mods are on it pretty darn quick when it happens on here and there is little they can do about the bully boys / haters when they target you on eBay etc


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No.
> I mean other than the 1 example do you have any other instances to substantiate your comment - "Some people on here however seem to get a kick out of stitching up others."
> 
> Its an important point - as has been pointed out it characterises the forum in a negative way.
> ...



As I say it may have been an isolated incident. However I have been warned about posting person information on here for that very reason. There are some nutters on this forum based upon their posts. Whether any would actually set about to harm another is debatable. We have the one instance of ebay tampering as evidence of maliciousness and warnings from others of this possibility as an indication of potential dangers.

If you feel otherwise post your phone number here.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> I'm getting bored of all this bickering, again.
> 
> You're both arguing about something which should be common sense. It appears to be happening more and more around here.



Yep. Hands up. Apollo is going on ignore list. Problem solved.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

gb155 said:


> With all due respect it's far from just auction wrecking that members and now former members have been causing me issues with, that said the mods are on it pretty darn quick when it happens on here and there is little they can do about the bully boys / haters when they target you on eBay etc



Sorry to hear that. I dont know your personal circumstances but it is beyond me to understand why anybody would do anything like that.


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Sorry to hear that. I dont know your personal circumstances but it is beyond me to understand why anybody would do anything like that.




There is a small group that originated from here that will do what they can to auction wreck , belittle my posts and generally attempt to be a pain in the butt- I guess it at lease fills there days up


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As I say it may have been an isolated incident. However I have been warned about posting person information on here for that very reason. There are some nutters on this forum based upon their posts. Whether any would actually set about to harm another is debatable. We have the one instance of ebay tampering as evidence of maliciousness and warnings from others of this possibility as an indication of potential dangers.
> 
> If you feel otherwise post your phone number here.



I dont know , maybe your right and there are some genuinely dangerous unpleasant people on the forum. It had not occured to me before.
Your not realy going to put me on your ignore list are you ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

gb155 said:


> There is a small group that originated from here that will do what they can to auction wreck , belittle my posts and generally attempt to be a pain in the butt- I guess it at lease fills there days up



Empty vessels and all that Gaz


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Empty vessels and all that Gaz




Am sure it brightens there day at least eh ? Feels like I'm " giving something back" to the community that way


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

gb155 said:


> There is a small group that originated from here that will do what they can to auction wreck , belittle my posts and generally attempt to be a pain in the butt- I guess it at lease fills there days up




I missed this auction bit and am suprised that some on here would do that, what a bunch of odious little sh*ts  

Keep up the good work gaz


----------



## 400bhp (13 Sep 2011)

gb155 said:


> There is a small group that originated from here that will do what they can to auction wreck , belittle my posts and generally attempt to be a pain in the butt- I guess it at lease fills there days up



Really?


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Riding in primary is a defencive position but also *requires the rider to be able to maintain a respectable road speed.*



RUBBISH!

I pointed out to you before that primary position is about keeping you safe and not the needs of other road users to get where they need to as quickly as possible. For example, if you are going up a steep hill and there is a pinch point approaching, do you a. keep in a secondar position but risk getting squashed and knocked over b. take a primary position and force other road users to slow down whilst you make your way through the hazard? Being excluded from riding in a safe position because you cycle too slowly is RIDICULOUS, espcailly from a cycling trainer.

I agree that staying in a primary position where it is not required can aggrovate other road users and is not advised BUT i don't see in this video where that happens. There are parked cars on either side of the road, the road narrows, the lane narrows, there is on coming traffic. The only safe place for the van driver to overtake is when he does so, and he would have got no further if he overtook sooner. I don't see the problem with him holding the position he does for the length of time he does.


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> Really?




True as night turns into day mate


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2011)

4F said:


> I would wear surgical gloves and use an East Anglian potato to cover my tracks




So you're going to Prestatyn. I'd leave dat alone if I were you.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

gb155 said:


> There is a small group that originated from here that will do what they can to auction wreck , belittle my posts and generally attempt to be a pain in the butt- I guess it at lease fills there days up



I have experienced a fair bit of name calling here myself and on occasions felt a bit surrounded , but that goes with the teritory of having some different opinions but auction wrecking and deliberate targeting are another thing entirely. I sympathise.
I do discuss/bicker with angel a bit - if it wernt for that id only have a postcount of 7. Im saddened to think i may have upset him.
Keep up the good work and good luck with the olympic torch.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> RUBBISH!
> 
> I pointed out to you before that primary position is about keeping you safe and not the needs of other road users to get where they need to as quickly as possible. For example, if you are going up a steep hill and there is a pinch point approaching, do you a. keep in a secondar position but risk getting squashed and knocked over b. take a primary position and force other road users to slow down whilst you make your way through the hazard? Being excluded from riding in a safe position because you cycle too slowly is RIDICULOUS, espcailly from a cycling trainer.
> 
> I agree that staying in a primary position where it is not required can aggrovate other road users and is not advised BUT i don't see in this video where that happens. There are parked cars on either side of the road, the road narrows, the lane narrows, there is on coming traffic. The only safe place for the van driver to overtake is when he does so, and he would have got no further if he overtook sooner. I don't see the problem with him holding the position he does for the length of time he does.



It is not rubbish at all and we are not talking about riding up hill. If you are holding primary on a flat stretch of average road I would expect a reasonable speed to be maintained.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1541754"]
Personally, I'd have moved over to let him pass. You had plenty of opportunities.
[/quote]

Ditto.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im saddened to think i may have upset him.




I doubt that, he seems fairly thick skinned. I have been trying for months


----------



## fossyant (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Well I have his address.



Don't forget latex gloves, the ski mask, and a heavy d-lock if you see the fella  

Other option is find out where his regular gardens are and put loads of lawn feed onto all the lawns - will make life hard work for him.  

PS some folk are far too serious ! 

PS As usual there are folk who are dragging the thread down. No doubt it will be locked or deleted soon.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It is not rubbish at all and we are not talking about riding up hill. If you are holding primary on a flat stretch of average road I would expect a reasonable speed to be maintained.



We are only allowed to take primary for safety sakes if we can maintain a resonable speed?
What do cyclists do if they can't maintain a resonable speed? get squashed?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> We are only allowed to take primary for safety sakes if we can maintain a resonable speed?



That is not what I am saying. Taking primary for safety sake then is perfectly acceptable. Holding primary when there is no need is foolish.


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> We are only allowed to take primary for safety sakes if we can maintain a resonable speed?
> What do cyclists do if they can't maintain a resonable speed? get squashed?



Don't be safe ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

4F said:


> I doubt that, he seems fairly thick skinned. I have been trying for months



Like a Rhino mate


----------



## gb155 (13 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Don't forget latex gloves, the ski mask, and a heavy d-lock if you see the fella
> 
> Other option is find out where his regular gardens are and put loads of lawn feed onto all the lawns - will make life hard work for him.
> 
> ...




If you had d-locked the amount of people you had threatened to, you'd be picking up soap for a very very long time


----------



## Rob3rt (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> We are only allowed to take primary for safety sakes if we can maintain a resonable speed?
> What do cyclists do if they can't maintain a resonable speed? get squashed?



Taking primary is all well and good, its your right to do so. However, sometimes common sense should over-rule a blind exercise of "rights".


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Taking primary is all well and good, its your right to do so. However, sometimes common sense over-rules a blind exercise of "rights".



 Be right. Just don't be dead right.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is not what I am saying. Taking primary for safety sake then is perfectly acceptable. Holding primary when there is no need is foolish.



That is what you said though.
I did say in my original post that holding it unnecessarily is not wise.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

I did the same stretch of road this afternoon after a 25 mile ride along the coast. I was nearly home, and remembered that people had commented on my road positioning. I decided to see how I felt with a less primary position. 
Appologies for the fuzziness but it had just poured down and I dont seem to have cleaned the lense very well. 

http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m562/monkeysnutscom/Videos/?action=view¤t=Changestolanepositioning.mp4


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

I've not watched the video yet but let's not forget that road position is subject to everything around us and not just in front


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I did the same stretch of road this afternoon after a 25 mile ride along the coast. I was nearly home, and remembered that people had commented on my road positioning. I decided to see how I felt with a less primary position.
> Appologies for the fuzziness but it had just poured down and I dont seem to have cleaned the lense very well.
> 
> http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m562/monkeysnutscom/Videos/?action=view¤t=Changestolanepositioning. mp4



Apart from making me feel a little sick because of the blurriness your position looked a lot better.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apart from making me feel a little sick because of the blurriness your position looked a lot better.



Yes, sorry about that. I had just been attacked by the remains of the hurricane.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Sep 2011)

What the police would do with this depends on what Matthew says when he reports it. AFS is correct when he says it'd be a public order offence at most. This would be the case if the drivers verbal behaviour made Matthew harassed, alarmed or distressed.

If it was given to me, I'd talk to the driver, and try to educate him, regarding both his driving and his later behaviour. However I wouldn't be anticipating a prosecution as Matthew didn't seem particularly scared when he came over, making no attempt to escape, and was quite happy to discuss the matter. Matthew just did it much more civilly than the driver, for which he should receive credit. I would however feel it was worthwhile to speak to the driver as I don't find his behaviour acceptable, but it would be just that - a word.

These would be my opinions. If Matthew wasn't happy with them I'd run them by a supervisor for a final say.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> What the police would do with this depends on what Matthew says when he reports it. AFS is correct when he says it'd be a public order offence at most. This would be the case if the drivers verbal behaviour made Matthew harassed, alarmed or distressed.
> 
> If it was given to me, I'd talk to the driver, and try to educate him, regarding both his driving and his later behaviour. However I wouldn't be anticipating a prosecution as Matthew didn't seem particularly scared when he came over, making no attempt to escape, and was quite happy to discuss the matter. Matthew just did it much more civilly than the driver, for which he should receive credit. I would however feel it was worthwhile to speak to the driver as I don't find his behaviour acceptable, but it would be just that - a word.
> 
> These would be my opinions. If Matthew wasn't happy with them I'd run them by a supervisor for a final say.



Thank you for your input. 

My fellings when he came to me were immediately: Is he going to hit me? I am just lucky that I wasnt going any faster because (stupid camera angle) he came runnign across the road, and if I had tryed to ride away, he would have probably grabbed me or hit me. 

The way he was speaking to me offended me greatly, that is the reason why I did not say much, I was too taken back. When he started to shout at me in order to get a response, I was certainly scared that he would do something more than shout. Saying "No" was a natural reaction. 

I have had compliments from people on the way I handled it, but that was purely to me feeling intimidated by his behaviuor.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

If anything your position is worse. 

- Your filtering at the start is very poor. Where were you going? There didn't appear to be an ASL and there was no space.
- You cycle in the door zone passed the parked cars. You could take a strong position at this point as well, as there is no way that the car behind you can overtake take you with oncoming cars.

On the plus you do move over to the left once you have passed some parked cars, but i don't personally see the point as anyone who overtook you there would then be an arse for doing a pointless overtake.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> What the police would do with this depends on what Matthew says when he reports it. AFS is correct when he says it'd be a public order offence at most. This would be the case if the drivers verbal behaviour made Matthew harassed, alarmed or distressed.
> 
> If it was given to me, I'd talk to the driver, and try to educate him, regarding both his driving and his later behaviour. However I wouldn't be anticipating a prosecution as Matthew didn't seem particularly scared when he came over, making no attempt to escape, and was quite happy to discuss the matter. Matthew just did it much more civilly than the driver, for which he should receive credit. I would however feel it was worthwhile to speak to the driver as I don't find his behaviour acceptable, but it would be just that - a word.
> 
> These would be my opinions. If Matthew wasn't happy with them I'd run them by a supervisor for a final say.



That may be the politic thing to say but isnt the reality that Mat should just put it down to experience. If it was reported to you every time 2 people squared up youd never have a minutes peace. If i was in that van drivers shoes and the police turned up on my door i woudnt be to impressed myself. I appreciate your good intentions but the police are duty bound to investigate complaints and in view of this maybe we shoudnt encourage people to go to the police over handbags type stuff (with all respeck to mat).


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> If anything your position is worse.
> 
> - Your filtering at the start is very poor. Where were you going? There didn't appear to be an ASL and there was no space.
> - You cycle in the door zone passed the parked cars. You could take a strong position at this point as well, as there is no way that the car behind you can overtake take you with oncoming cars.



I agree that at the start, I maybe shouldnt have filtered, but the lights changed directly after I had filtered past one car. I should have anticipated the lights changing and just waited. 

It may seem that I was cycling in the door zone but I can assure you that I was prepared for anything to happen.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That may be the politic thing to say but isnt the reality that Mat should just put it down to experience. If it was reported to you every time 2 people squared up youd never have a minutes peace. If i was in that van drivers shoes and the police turned up on my door i woudnt be to impressed myself. I appreciate your good intentions but the police are duty bound to investigate complaints and in view of this maybe we shoudnt encourage people to go to the police over handbags type stuff (with all respeck to mat).



The police arent just there for major emergencies, they are a service. The fire brigade deal with small bin fires to building fires. The ambulance service deal with a number of incidents which may seem minor, but in the end it is a service that they provide. 

The police would be servicing me if they were to take my case seriously and deal with the driver in an appropriate mannor. The driver was very threatening and went out of his way to tailgate me, and then park up just so he could have a go at me and try to scare me into riding like he wants me to.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I can assure you that I was prepared for anything to happen.



Assure your self all you want, I'm not the one going to get hurt by a door opening in front of you.


----------



## BSRU (13 Sep 2011)

I've just been able to watch the first video with sound, the driver was swearing his head and talking in a very threatening/aggresive manor to get the answer he wanted.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Assure your self all you want, I'm not the one going to get hurt by a door opening in front of you.



Just like I assured myself that I wouldnt come off my bike by going around a 90 degree corner at 25mph. And look what happened, I was in hospital for 4 days.


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Just like I assured myself that I wouldnt come off my bike by going around a 90 degree corner at 25mph. And look what happened, I was in hospital for 4 days.



Yes dont put your mum through that again.
Anyway your van driver there is just what van drivers are like mat - i dont really see the harm myself. If your going to report all this kind of stiff youd better get a dedicated phone line put in straight through to Prestatyn police.
And also did the van driver "park up just so he could have a go at" you - wasnt he out of sight and you caught up with him ?


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes dont put your mum through that again.
> Anyway your van driver there is just what van drivers are like mat - i dont really see the harm myself. If your going to report all this kind of stiff youd better get a dedicated phone line put in straight through to Prestatyn police.
> And also did the van driver "park up just so he could have a go at" you - wasnt he out of sight and you caught up with him ?



He purposely parked up just so he could have a go at me. I saw him parking and in the vid, you can see him turning off his lights. 
After he had satisfied himself, he got back into the van and passed me about 30 secs after (I purposely cycled in the gutter to avoid him).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew. That assumes that he knew where you were going doesn't it?


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> He purposely parked up just so he could have a go at me. I saw him parking and in the vid, you can see him turning off his lights.
> After he had satisfied himself, he got back into the van and passed me about 30 secs after (I purposely cycled in the gutter to avoid him).



Ok accepting that he pulled up just to have a go at you then i would regard it in the perspective that he didnt do anyhting worse than he did - he didnt hit you and he didnt threaten to hit you with his van , he just blew off some steam. Not acceoable i know but hey there but for the grace of god etc etc. You wait till youve got a mortgage to pay and a nagging wife and your driving a shitty van for a living mat (hopefully you wont be but you get my point) and one day you may see the other side of the coin.
Anyway you did well to defuse the situation and if you think its worth reporting you know best. It might be good for him to have his unacceptable behaviour pointed out - who knows.
I also woudnt have let him out of the t junction btw.


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Matthew. That assumes that he knew where you were going doesn't it?



Mirrors?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Mirrors?


So the van, using his mirrors and whilst driving at 30+mph anticipated every turn Matthew was going to make. One hell of a skill.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So the van, using his mirrors and whilst driving at 30+mph anticipated every turn Matthew was going to make. One hell of a skill.



Well after we went throught the 5th set of lights, I was in the lane to turn right, and he changed lanes after me. From then on, he must have worked out which way I was going to go.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok accepting that he pulled up just to have a go at you then i would regard it in the perspective that he didnt do anyhting worse than he did - he didnt hit you and he didnt threaten to hit you with his van , he just blew off some steam. Not acceoable i know but hey there but for the grace of god etc etc. You wait till youve got a mortgage to pay and a nagging wife and your driving a shitty van for a living mat (hopefully you wont be but you get my point) and one day you may see the other side of the coin.
> Anyway you did well to defuse the situation and if you think its worth reporting you know best. It might be good for him to have his unacceptable behaviour pointed out - who knows.
> I also woudnt have let him out of the t junction btw.



I would certainly hope that I am not a member of a gardening company with 3 staff. From making a career choice of being a civil engineer, I would be a bit confused if I was running a garden company, not a civil engineering company at his age (Late 30's).


----------



## gaz (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So the van, using his mirrors and whilst driving at 30+mph anticipated every turn Matthew was going to make. One hell of a skill.



Watch the video again and watch the roads and how the second to last turn was always going to be a left one, wouldn't take a genius to work out where he was going.

Using your mirrors at +30mph is a pretty easy task, if you can't do that then you really shouldn't be on the roads.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Sep 2011)

I bet you anything that if I had stayed in the right lane, he would have moved over, just so he can do what "he thinks is right".


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

You know I meant using the mirrors to tail someone from infront. Yes the road bore left but there were other roads as I recall he could have turned onto.
Anyway, I don't really care.


----------



## boydj (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1541754"]
Personally, I'd have moved over to let him pass. You had plenty of opportunities.
[/quote]

Personally, I would have let the guy out at the lights where he was waiting, effectively in the queue for the light, although he was not able to emerge from the side-street. I doubt if a motorist would have been rude enough to block him off like that. Squeezing in front of him then was what wound the guy up initially. Failing to let him pass was just adding insult to injury - as MP says, there was plenty of opportunity to do so.


----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I would certainly hope that I am not a member of a gardening company with 3 staff. From making a career choice of being a civil engineer, I would be a bit confused if I was running a garden company, not a civil engineering company at his age (Late 30's).


You never know what fate has in store for you mat. (queue spooky music)


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I would certainly hope that I am not a member of a gardening company with 3 staff. From making a career choice of being a civil engineer, I would be a bit confused if I was running a garden company, not a civil engineering company at his age (Late 30's).



What's wrong with being a gardener? What's wrong with a company having only three staff? You're just being a snob now.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2011)

My conclusion having read these 10 pages is:

The driver was an angry knobber

You didnt help matters and the nature of your blog and recent threads dont do you any favours as they make it look like you go out looking for material!


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> My conclusion having read these 10 pages is:
> 
> The driver was an angry knobber
> 
> You didnt help matters and the nature of your blog and recent threads dont do you any favours as they make it look like you go out looking for material!



I cannot believe any cyclist would be that stupid, they would be putting their life/health in serious danger as they are relying on drivers actually paying attention to what they are doing. It is very obvious to most road users that often drivers are distracted by their mobile, mp3 player or worse.


----------



## johnnyh (14 Sep 2011)

all this does make me wonder if the use of cameras actually makes riders look for trouble, some kind of attention seeking.

I commute 150-200 miles a week on my bike, and whilst I encounter the daft driving that we all do, I am more focussed on my safety and my riding than I am on capturing stuff on a camera.

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

johnnyh said:


> all this does make me wonder if the use of cameras actually makes riders look for trouble, some kind of attention seeking.
> 
> I commute 150-200 miles a week on my bike, and whilst I encounter the daft driving that we all do, I am more focussed on my safety and my riding than I am on capturing stuff on a camera.
> 
> Just thinking out loud...



No

I've had a very incident free couple of weeks, despite experimenting with an extra camera on my handlebars for the last couple of days.

Just replying out loud...


----------



## johnnyh (14 Sep 2011)

what is your reasoning for attaching the camera then? 

and by "No", you are answering for every camera toting cyclist on the planet or you personally?

Just replying OUT EVEN LOUDER


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Sep 2011)

It's true about cameras. If the OP wasn't concentrating on reading the number plate of a Jag that'd crept into the ASL he might have had to presence of mind to let the van out.


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

johnnyh said:


> what is your reasoning for attaching the camera then?
> 
> and by "No", you are answering for every camera toting cyclist on the planet or you personally?
> 
> Just replying OUT EVEN LOUDER



I attached the camera purely for artistic reasons.

"No" is for me and other "normal", non-death wish camera wearing cyclists, I refer to my previous post.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> I attached the camera purely for artistic reasons.



What does that mean?


----------



## Hip Priest (14 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> What does that mean?



"Contretemps avec van man blanc" is all set to debut at next year's Sundance festival.


----------



## LosingFocus (14 Sep 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> "Contretemps avec van man blanc" is all set to debut at next year's Sundance festival.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)




----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

Quite a shame mat didnt get that bit on camera.
I can picture him camera in hand saying to the enraged wvm - "yes thats it but try to look more mental".


----------



## johnnyh (14 Sep 2011)

I would still think that either consciously or subconsciously the camera affects the riders behaviour.


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> What does that mean?



It's pointing at the right side of my handlebars capturing the view of things I cycle past, I produced a 15 minute video, containing 30 minutes video from part of my commute, added a Dvorak sound track and Bob's your aunties husband. Not uploaded it yet as YouTube stated it would take 90 minutes, so will do it later.

Probably of no interest to anyone apart from me.


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

johnnyh said:


> I would still think that either consciously or subconsciously the camera affects the riders behaviour.



Yes, you tend to be more restrained and not ride illegally, most of the time.


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

"Cyclists with cameras go out looking for trouble"
*yawn* same rubbish different day.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> "Cyclists with cameras go out looking for trouble"
> *yawn* same rubbish different day.



That wasnt my point Gaz, my point was specific to this particular helmet cam cyclist!


----------



## gb155 (14 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> "Cyclists with cameras go out looking for trouble"
> *yawn* same rubbish different day.



I've never undersold that

With your help and my camera, all that's happened is I'm a better and safer cyclist these days


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> That wasnt my point Gaz, my point was specific to this particular helmet cam cyclist!



I wasn't replying to anyone in particular  
Just to that comment in general.


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1541812"]
Honestly, I think that some camera wearers do become more aggressive when they're wearing them. That doesn't mean that the others need to get defensive.
[/quote]

Do you know what they are like when they are not on the bike with a camera?

In some situations it is hard to control the adrenaline which is pumping through you after a large vehicle has nearly knocked you off your bicycle.


----------



## Rob3rt (14 Sep 2011)

I think you can get a reasonably good idea of peoples intentions/mentality in wearing a helmet camera based on the frequency and the nature of the video's they post.


----------



## gaz (14 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1541815"]
I've got a camera myself and I've experienced certain urges, so obviously if I've experienced it then so have others. It's one of the reasons I don't bother with it any more.
[/quote]
So you went out looking for trouble?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> It's pointing at the right side of my handlebars capturing the view of things I cycle past, I produced a 15 minute video, containing 30 minutes video from part of my commute, added a Dvorak sound track and Bob's your aunties husband. Not uploaded it yet as YouTube stated it would take 90 minutes, so will do it later.
> 
> Probably of no interest to anyone apart from me.



So it has nothing to do with your encounters with other road users?


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> That wasnt my point Gaz, my point was specific to this particular helmet cam cyclist!



I'm with Rob on this.


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> So it has nothing to do with your encounters with other road users?



No, I've made a few of these type of video's in the past, thought is was about time for a new one.


----------



## 400bhp (14 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> No, I've made a few of these type of video's in the past, thought is was about time for a new one.



Here's your early text, responding to a direct question.




> what is your reasoning for attaching the camera then?






> I attached the camera purely for artistic reasons.



How do you explain the above?


----------



## BSRU (14 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> Here's your early text, responding to a direct question.
> 
> 
> > No, I've made a few of these type of video's in the past, thought is was about time for a new one.
> ...



My previous efforts have used footage from the rear camera, as it is fixed to the bike, using footage from my helmet camera is no good as I move my head, speeded up can be a little nauseating. Since I bought a new Contour Plus I have a "spare" Contour 1080p, which I thought about using in the car but I rarely drive theses days. I have only had the spare on my hybrid bike for two days as I tried different position's seeing what was watch-able. I did not use the spare camera today as I used my road bike and I could not be bothered to move the handlebar mount.


----------



## CopperCyclist (14 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That may be the politic thing to say but isnt the reality that Mat should just put it down to experience. If it was reported to you every time 2 people squared up youd never have a minutes peace. If i was in that van drivers shoes and the police turned up on my door i woudnt be to impressed myself. I appreciate your good intentions but the police are duty bound to investigate complaints and in view of this maybe we shoudnt encourage people to go to the police over handbags type stuff (with all respeck to mat).




We deal with many things that are - simply put - a waste of our time. I wouldn't class Matthews job as this if it was reported to me. I'd much prefer to deal with him than try to explain the concept of 'lawful ejection' to an abusive, drunken yob without a makr on him claiming assault agains nightclub staff, or have to deal with a false report from a heavy drug user that they've had 300 quid stolen and need a crime number to get a crisis loan - when their benefits don't even stretch to this.

Matthews replies indicate that he was threatened by the mans behaviour. If you wish to report it mate, do so with a clear conscience.


----------



## Matthew_T (14 Sep 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> That wasnt my point Gaz, my point was specific to this particular helmet cam cyclist!



 Well i havent changed at all since I have had my camera. The fact is: Drivers in my area are not used to driving around cyclists. As I am the only one around the area, and the frequency that I go out, I am bound to come across many more bad driving incidents that in somewhere say London.


----------



## Matthew_T (14 Sep 2011)

Back to the video, when being tailgated what should you do? Speed up, slow down, look back a lot to make sure you can see what he is doing, ignore him? Any advice?


----------



## vickster (14 Sep 2011)

Pull in, stop, let him/her go past, ignore him/her as he/she does so ...my 2p


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Back to the video, when being tailgated what should you do? Speed up, slow down, look back a lot to make sure you can see what he is doing, ignore him? Any advice?


Pull over when safe and allow driver to pass.


----------



## Matthew_T (14 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pull over when safe and allow driver to pass.



Maybe if I had done that in this situation, the whole incident would never have occurred. Or I could have pulled over somewhere where he couldnt i.e. a bus station.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Sep 2011)

As long as you learn from it then all is good.


----------



## Matthew_T (14 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As long as you learn from it then all is good.



That is the good thing about this forum. Yes there are some people who purely critisize you but on the other hand, there are people like you and Gaz who offer very good advice. 

It is always a learning curve, life.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> We deal with many things that are - simply put - a waste of our time. I wouldn't class Matthews job as this if it was reported to me. I'd much prefer to deal with him than try to explain the concept of 'lawful ejection' to an abusive, drunken yob without a makr on him claiming assault agains nightclub staff, or have to deal with a false report from a heavy drug user that they've had 300 quid stolen and need a crime number to get a crisis loan - when their benefits don't even stretch to this.
> 
> Matthews replies indicate that he was threatened by the mans behaviour. If you wish to report it mate, do so with a clear conscience.



Yes i see that it is certainly more valid than some other things you have to deal with and the guy pulling over and approaching matt is a bit extreme . Maybe the wvm would benefit from a the police having a word with him.


----------



## Matthew_T (16 Sep 2011)

All sorted! A nice police officer came around just now and I showed her the video and explained what happened. She said that there was no need to the driver to stop and get so irate. 
I told her that I didnt want to go down the prosecution route because it wasnt worth it, but at least have a word with him about being so agressive. She said she would and I gave a good description of him. The police officer will ring me back when she has had a word. 

All's well, ends well.


----------



## jig-sore (16 Sep 2011)

going by the voice, im sure it was the small one from the chuckle brothers. hope this helps


----------



## apollo179 (18 Sep 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> All sorted! A nice police officer came around just now and I showed her the video and explained what happened. She said that there was no need to the driver to stop and get so irate.
> I told her that I didnt want to go down the prosecution route because it wasnt worth it, but at least have a word with him about being so agressive. She said she would and I gave a good description of him. The police officer will ring me back when she has had a word.
> 
> All's well, ends well.



Interested to hear what the wpc has to report after speaking to our wvm.


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Interested to hear what the wpc has to report after speaking to our wvm.



It probably wont be the typical "He apologises for his actions" situation. I bet you anything he tries to argue with the PC about how he was right. 

He will never learn.


----------



## Cyclox (18 Sep 2011)

Sounds like he knows you......the reference he makes to 'doing it to you if you were on your bike.' Or did I hear that wrong? Anyway, good luck with your complaint whoever you decide to send it to. Me? I'd send it to both; the Police (a day ahead) of the Company!


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Sep 2011)

Cyclox said:


> Sounds like he knows you......the reference he makes to 'doing it to you if you were on your bike.' Or did I hear that wrong? Anyway, good luck with your complaint whoever you decide to send it to. Me? I'd send it to both; the Police (a day ahead) of the Company!



I dont know him but he might have seen me around the area before. I cannot remember seeing him. 

I am not going to bother sending it to the company because they dont have an email adress and if I ring them up, I will probably get an ear full.


----------

