# I think I may have killed a driver...



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

So I'm proceeding at a fair old lick along a two lane road, I'm in the RH lane as I want to turn right at the lights which are ahead (the left hand lane goes straight on without traffic lights) and I know the timing such that I need to be going some to make the lights... I reach them and they turn Amber just as I enter the ASL so no chance of stopping... I sail through and round the 'S' bend only to be followed by 3 cars. 

Now the first one *may* have had an excuse for not braking as he was reasonably close behind me... but the other two were definitely jumping the red!! I look over my shoulder and clock them all, then sit up and applaud them for such great driving whilst shaking my head and then it all kicks off... 

The driver of the third car reaches across his passenger and tries to wind the window down whilst beeping at me and shouting. As he's passing me now hurling abuse about me just being "a f*cking cyclist" I simply shout that he ran the red and maybe he should learn to drive. Cue much more ranting and shaking of fist at me whilst I wave nicely (possibly suggesting that maybe he pleasures himself whilst alone) and continue shaking my head. 

At the next set of lights about 1/2 a mile down the road I catch him again and he's at the front of the queue, in the ASL (which he enters after the lights have changed)... here we go.... 

I breeze past him in the cycle lane and stop in front of his nearside light (as there's another cyclist already on the left so I give them a bit of room). He starts beeping me again and hanging out of his window shouting so I reiterate that he shouldn't have jumped the red, and now he was breaking the law by being in the ASL and that he can get fined and points on his license and maybe he really should pass a test or something... 

He's almost at the point of a coronary as the lights change and I leave him there messing with his gears. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he stalled it too as it seemed to take him a bit until he passed me again on the way to the next lights... still beeping and shouting across his passenger, to which I just shake my head again. 

At the next lights he's a few cars from the front and has pulled across a bit to block the cycle lane somewhat... no matter though, I'll simply go round the other side of his car whilst he frantically tries to wind his window down to shout again at me.... he's keen, I'll give him that. 

I wave to him again and smile before leaving him fuming in traffic. The lights change and off I go.

I didn't see him again after that and think he may have passed away from a heart attack. Shame really, I was just getting used to his amusing shouting and beeping and gesticulating. 

Hope his car didn't hold too many other people up though as they carted him away in the ambulance/hearse...

Am I evil?


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

LOL! Now where was your helmet camera? I'd have loved that to be up on youtube!

OTOH I'm much more wary of going ahead of an angry or wound up driver just in case they decide to use their vehicle as a weapon to assault/murder me.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

I would say lucky,that he wasnt a bloke who acted on being wound up by someone who amber gambered themselves.


----------



## Twiggy (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I would say lucky,that he wasnt a bloke who acted on being wound up by someone who amber gambered themselves.




It's legal to go through an amber light if stopping would be unsafe.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I would say lucky,that he wasnt a bloke who acted on being wound up by someone who amber gambered themselves.



You're wrong on the amber gambling:



Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I reach them and they turn Amber just as I enter the ASL so no chance of stopping...



He could have been further back, capable of stopping, and still go through legally if he thought the cars behind him were too close and unlikely to stop without knocking him off.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Twiggy said:


> It's legal to go through an amber light if stopping would be unsafe.





So why was there a massive tv add saying not to do it some time ago as it is dangerous to do it,you can use that excuse for a few things,if its dangerous you obviously were driving in an unsafe manner,are we not supposed to slow down as we approach lights,to be ready for a change so we can stop?Instead of racing through amber and then purposely winding up others who followed you through.?And then seemingly likeing the fact that the driver could have a heart attack because of your nasty behaviour,i hope someone is there with a helmet cam when you do it to someone who takes you to task for your disgusting behaviour.No wonder we are disliked more and more on the roads.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're wrong on the amber gambling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Explain why its ok to amber gamber?

He admitted to knowing the timings of the lights,and having to go some and even then he was too late,but still decided to carry on at his fair lick.


----------



## Joe24 (2 Sep 2008)

LOL 
Brilliant, i reckon he broke his window winder and was busy trying to fix it for when you come past on that side again 
We scared a guy on the club ride, he came past close then at the traffic lights we surrounded his car, and a few was there shouting at him. His face was a picture, he did put his hand up and smile(after he abuse and someone saying they wonted to rip him out his car) but how could yu argue with about 6 people that had gone around his car and more sitting at the back


----------



## medals (2 Sep 2008)

LOL!
That did make me laugh.
Maybe he should cut down on the caffine.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

medals said:


> LOL!
> That did make me laugh.
> Maybe he should cut down on the caffine.



He wont need to when he does it to the wrong person


----------



## grhm (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So why was there a massive tv add saying not to do it some time ago as it is dangerous to do it?



I believe the TV ad was saying you shouldn't try to drive through an amber light, if you can stop. If you put your foot down to get through before it goes red, you probably have enough time to stop safely and thats the correct course of action.

I don't believe the ad was saying you should never drive through an amber - but that may have been lost in the simplification to get the point across in the short ad.

I though that, when driving at the speed limit approaching the green light, the amber is supposed to be phased to allow a vehicle moving at the speed limit to stop in a normal (non-emergnecy) stopping distance/time, before the light goes red. Thus, if you are closer to the light than safe to stop, you can (and should) proceed - it just most drivers (myself included sometimes) think "quick get through before it goes red".


----------



## goo_mason (2 Sep 2008)

Hilarious !!

Yes, maybe winding someone up could have been dangerous, but it still made me snort my tea out of my nose as I laughed


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

grhm said:


> I believe the TV ad was saying you shouldn't try to drive through an amber light, if you can stop. If you put your foot down to get through before it goes red, you probably have enough time to stop safely and thats the correct course of action.
> 
> I don't believe the ad was saying you should never drive through an amber - but that may have been lost in the simplification to get the point across in the short ad.
> 
> I though that, when driving at the speed limit approaching the green light, the amber is supposed to be phased to allow a vehicle moving at the speed limit to stop in a normal (non-emergnecy) stopping distance/time, before the light goes red. Thus, if you are closer to the light than safe to stop, you can (and should) proceed - it just most drivers (myself included sometimes) think "quick get through before it goes red".



I agree,when we drive safely.
A premeditated cycle through on amber,when claiming to know the time of the lights,and only just making the amber,is a dangerous way to go.


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2008)

Made me laugh - although there will be a fair few more cyclists about on Sunday.

Crap car if he only had winders !!!

You were very inconsiderate in not suggesting that he may want to go on an anger management course and also get his blood pressure checked.

I think 'jesticulating' might have wound the three drivers up.


----------



## snorri (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Am I evil?



Yes.


----------



## gavintc (2 Sep 2008)

A great story - certainly made me laugh.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Instead of racing through amber and then purposely winding up others who followed you through.?And then seemingly likeing the fact that the driver could have a heart attack because of your nasty behaviour,



Lighten up, Col. There was absolutely no way I could stop safely when the light turned Amber. I was just entering the ASL when it changed, I was doing about 15mph (having eased off from a peak of about 24 ready for the 'S' bend in the road) and braking for the turn but there's no way it would be safe to slam on there... are you mad???

<sarcasm>
"Seemingly liking the fact the driver could have had a heart attack"... yeah, it was all very serious and I was goading him particularly to see if I could kill him. 
</sarcasm>

He could have stopped quite safely, but didn't. He chose to jump the red and I made my feelings known - if he chooses to get wound up for someone not approving of his stupid actions then more fool him.


----------



## HLaB (2 Sep 2008)

Good story it made me laugh 

I was a little bit naughty on Saturday some woman in her black WV golf cut me up at a roundabout and bullied some other cars out of the way in an attempt to get through the lights at the next juction. Give her due she did manage to stop when the changed to red, right across the ASL. So I just cruised past her into the ASL. Before the lights went to green, still on amber, she was peeping, I just laughed.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Lighten up, Col. There was absolutely no way I could stop safely when the light turned Amber. I was just entering the ASL when it changed, I was doing about 15mph (having eased off from a peak of about 24 ready for the 'S' bend in the road) and braking for the turn but there's no way it would be safe to slam on there... are you mad???
> 
> <sarcasm>
> "Seemingly liking the fact the driver could have had a heart attack"... yeah, it was all very serious and I was goading him particularly to see if I could kill him.
> ...




Because of the way you goaded,insinuated he was a self-gratification artist,and said he needed to pass a test or something,what was it you were trying to do?Did he cause you any danger,why would you think its up to you to inflame a situation so you could make your feelings known?This was something i was trying to find out in a thread some time ago,why did you feel the need to do this?And to what end?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

Map here assuming I've done it correctly...


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Sep 2008)

TBH Col, regardless of vehicle, if you're going at traffic speeds and you reach the ASL on amber, I don't think you could stop without ending up in the middle of the road.

I don't like winding drivers up though - when it comes to it, they have 3 tons of metal at their disposal, and as is shown far too frequently on the roads, little idea of how dangerous it can be.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Because of the way you goaded,insinuated he was a self-gratification artist,and said he needed to pass a test or something,what was it you were trying to do?


He passed as I was clapping and shaking my head - he started the verbal and the gesticulating, I merely returned the favour and pointed out why I was applauding his driving.



> Did he cause you any danger,why would you think its up to you to inflame a situation so you could make your feelings known?


No, you're right - he didn't endanger me, so that's okay. No need to be bothered as long as I'm not involved. Yes siree, as long as he doesn't kill me with his crap driving I'll let it slide. 



> This was something i was trying to find out in a thread some time ago,why did you feel the need to do this?And to what end?


No end as such, just thought I'd let him know I'd seen him and that it wasn't acceptable. 

Do you turn a blind eye to everything that doesn't 'absolutely directly' affect you?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> TBH Col, regardless of vehicle, if you're going at traffic speeds and you reach the ASL on amber, I don't think you could stop without ending up in the middle of the road.
> 
> I don't like winding drivers up though - when it comes to it, they have 3 tons of metal at their disposal, and as is shown far too frequently on the roads, little idea of how dangerous it can be.



Im curious as to why he felt the need to cause upset to another driver,who it seems had nothing to do with him,until he started "letting them know his feelings"?That they jumped the lights,and why,when this driver had done nothing to him,did he seem to find it funny that he was obviously very wound up,added to the fact that the car was a second behind what he had just done himself.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

Errr, I didn't jump the red light.

There was no way I could have stopped in time and safely... what part of that don't you get?


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Because of the way you goaded,insinuated he was a self-gratification artist,and said he needed to pass a test or something,what was it you were trying to do?Did he cause you any danger,why would you think its up to you to inflame a situation so you could make your feelings known?This was something i was trying to find out in a thread some time ago,why did you feel the need to do this?And to what end?



Ahh, yes, the 'lets be passive and the idiots won't hurt us' approach. 

Sorry, I don't buy it. Don't tell 'em they're in the wrong, they won't know.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> He passed as I was clapping and shaking my head - he started the verbal and the gesticulating, I merely returned the favour and pointed out why I was applauding his driving.
> 
> 
> It hadnt occured to you that your sarcastic clapping and nodding caused him to react?Im sure you knew what you were doing.
> ...



Depends what it is,but i wont have a go at upsetting people because they do something similar to me.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Depends what it is,but i wont have a go at upsetting people because they *do something similar to me*.


I'll make this as plain as I can for you...

The light turned to *AMBER *when I got to the start of the ASL slowing from about 15mph. Maybe I was a tad slower than other times, usually I get through the lights without seeing them change (but know when they do as I have glanced back and can see the light at the 'other' side)

The three cars followed me.

The *FIRST *one MAY have had justification for not stopping, it would be a very close call as he should have been far enough behind me to be able to stop safely

The *SECOND *and *THIRD *cars must have gone through on *RED*.

Can you see the difference now? AMBER / RED, different.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Ahh, yes, the 'lets be passive and the idiots won't hurt us' approach.
> 
> Sorry, I don't buy it. Don't tell 'em they're in the wrong, they won't know.



Whats passive about not inflaming a situation?Or are we as cyclists allowed to do things,but a car cant or they are crap drivers and the idiots might hurt us?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I'll make this as plain as I can for you...
> 
> The light turned to *AMBER *when I got to the start of the ASL slowing from about 15mph. Maybe I was a tad slower than other times, usually I get through the lights without seeing them change (but know when they do as I have glanced back and can see the light at the 'other' side)
> 
> ...



The difference is that you knew you were cutting it tight,but decided to "let your feelings known"to someone who hadnt done anything to you?I just wonder why?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

I didn't have you down as a troll, Col... maybe I need to adjust my thinking on that one.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

I suppose by the same logic you're using that the hijackers who hit the Twin Towers didn't do anything to me, so I've no business being outraged by their actions.

Errr, think I'll give that logic a wide berth.


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Ahh, yes, the 'lets be passive and the idiots won't hurt us' approach.


I had a guy threaten to kick the shoot out of me after I said "Thank you" because he hadn't pulled out of a side road in front of me (he thought I'd said "f--- you", for some reason). He had four mates in his car too.

I don't take the chance any more. Fair play to those of you who do point out light jumping etc, but chances are these dunces know they're breaking traffic law (as they do when they speed) they just don't give a toss, and neither does the law. The latter seems to apply if things get a bit tasty afterwards too.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Errr, I didn't jump the red light.
> 
> There was no way I could have stopped in time and safely... what part of that don't you get?




I didnt say you jumped red,YOU said you went through on amber?I wonder why you couldnt stop safely,when you said you knew the timing?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

I hear you, JTM. Yes, it could go pear shaped very quickly, but I simply can't bight my tongue.

Red head, firey temper... what can you do??


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I suppose by the same logic you're using that the hijackers who hit the Twin Towers didn't do anything to me, so I've no business being outraged by their actions.
> 
> Errr, think I'll give that logic a wide berth.




Strange logic you have there indeed.I would if i were you too


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I didnt say you jumped red,YOU said you went through on amber?I wonder why you couldnt stop safely,when you said you knew the timing?


Oh. My. God.

An ASL is about 8 foot long (I'm guessing) - as I said later I usually make it through without it changing, hence me knowing that I need to go at a fair lick to be able to do this.

I must have been a bit slower today as when I entered the ASL it changed. I'd love to see you brake from about 15mph to a stop in about 8 feet of tarmac which precedes an 'S' bend type road layout... not to mention that the people behind you probably wouldn't be expecting it... and as I'm in Primary (don't want people overtaking me here!!) I'm pretty much guaranteed to be wiped out....


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I didnt say you jumped red,


Actually you did: "added to the fact that the car was a second behind what *he had just done himself*.".. now I said the car jumped red, so by your statement you're saying that I did too.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I didn't have you down as a troll, Col... maybe I need to adjust my thinking on that one.



Why namecall because i have a different opinion?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Actually you did: "added to the fact that the car was a second behind what *he had just done himself*.".. now I said the car jumped red, so by your statement you're saying that I did too.



I can see the minutely rip to bits anything game starting.If you feel its ok to go through on amber then fine,i personally wouldnt on a bike,I didnt say you jumped red,but in my opinion,amber can be just as dangerous on a bike.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

Col, either you're being a troll here, or just very stupid. Go and read the highway code on traffic lights. Your opinion on Sharky having illegally jumped amber is utterly utterly wrong.

Your opinion on his wisdom of winding up the driver is different, and whilst I don't agree with it, I can respect your position.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Oh. My. God.
> 
> An ASL is about 8 foot long (I'm guessing) - as I said later I usually make it through without it changing, hence me knowing that I need to go at a fair lick to be able to do this.
> 
> I must have been a bit slower today as when I entered the ASL it changed. I'd love to see you brake from about 15mph to a stop in about 8 feet of tarmac which precedes an 'S' bend type road layout... not to mention that the people behind you probably wouldn't be expecting it... and as I'm in Primary (don't want people overtaking me here!!) I'm pretty much guaranteed to be wiped out....




So your willing to take the risk of the lights changing just as you get there?What would you have done if you were one second later and it had gone red?


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Whats passive about not inflaming a situation?Or are we as cyclists allowed to do things,but a car cant or they are crap drivers and the idiots might hurt us?



Not inflaming the situation? The motoris was aggressive in response to harmles behaviour. Just being on the road with that kind of person inflames the situation; what are you going to do, dismount and walk everywhere because, just rarely, you meet an a$$hole on the roads?


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So your willing to take the risk of the lights changing just as you get there?What would you have done if you were one second later and it had gone red?



The great thing about amber lights is that they're there to allow you to make a judgement call; stop if its safe to stop, don't stop if for whatever reason to do so is not safe. If you arrive at the lights a bit later then they've been amber for a few moments and you'll have slowed down, if you're not slowing down and not through before they've turned red then you've got it wrong. 

Are you seriously saying that there are no circumstances in which you end up going through at amber? If not, you're probably being too tentative with green lights.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Col, either you're being a troll here, or just very stupid. Go and read the highway code on traffic lights. Your opinion on Sharky having illegally jumped amber is utterly utterly wrong.
> 
> Your opinion on his wisdom of winding up the driver is different, and whilst I don't agree with it, I can respect your position.



My main concern was the way he caused the reaction,not just going through on amber.Im saying it was dangerous in itself to go through on amber on his bike,if you think that is stupid,then so be it.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> The great thing about amber lights is that they're there to allow you to make a judgement call; stop if its safe to stop, don't stop if for whatever reason to do so is not safe. If you arrive at the lights a bit later then they've been amber for a few moments and you'll have slowed down, if you're not slowing down and not through before they've turned red then you've got it wrong.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that there are no circumstances in which you end up going through at amber? If not, you're probably being too tentative with green lights.




No,im saying its dangerous to carry on on amber on a bike,he even says he was a bit later than usual,so what would he have done if it had turned red,and as he says wouldnt have stood a chance of stopping?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Not inflaming the situation? The motoris was aggressive in response to harmles behaviour. Just being on the road with that kind of person inflames the situation; what are you going to do, dismount and walk everywhere because, just rarely, you meet an a$$hole on the roads?



The reason the motorist was agressive was probably due to his sarcasm.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So your willing to take the risk of the lights changing just as you get there?What would you have done if you were one second later and it had gone red?



I take his write on it that he would have stopped on amber, except that in this case he couldn't - he was already upon the ASL, and I don't think anyone on here would be able to stop in that situation at 15mph, not without ending up well in the middle of the average junction at that point.

Why do you persist in saying Sharky is an amber gambler in this situation, where he isn't according to his own words?


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> No,im saying its dangerous to carry on on amber on a bike,he even says he was a bit later than usual,so what would he have done if it had turned red,and as he says wouldnt have stood a chance of stopping?



Its about relative risk; it can be risky to go through an amber but more dangerous not to do so. Thats his call, and I don't believe for a moment that you never make that decision (as the light changes to amber and you'd be through it before you could stop - it happens). 

If it had turned red then it would have gone through amber first, in which case it would be amber earlier on and he'd have had time (at 15mph ish) to stop. 

This ain't complex; why are you making a big deal of it?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I take his write on it that he would have stopped on amber, except that in this case he couldn't - he was already upon the ASL, and I don't think anyone on here would be able to stop in that situation at 15mph, not without ending up well in the middle of the average junction at that point.
> 
> Why do you persist in saying Sharky is an amber gambler in this situation, where he isn't according to his own words?



Thats the way the debate seems to have gone,He went through on amber pure and simple,he admits it,i cant see what the problem is,i think that can be dangerous,others dont.He causes a driver to get annoyed through his sarcasm,why?Because he followed him through,and he feels it was wrong,and even though the driver is not happy,he continues to insult which causes more annoyance,but its all the drivers fault isnt it? yeah right.Iv never said its illegal to go through amber,iv only said its been on the telly as a bad thing,and i wouldnt do it,but then the usual happens,name calling and disection of things.Its an opinion,and i certainly think causing drivers to react aggressively is a stupid thing to do,but then again some dont.


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> The reason the motorist was agressive was probably due to his sarcasm.



No, the reason why the motorist was aggressive was because he was an a4$£hole. You're incorrect to blame a cyclist for being _trivially_ sarcastic.


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> but its all the drivers fault isnt it?



Plainly.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Its about relative risk; it can be risky to go through an amber but more dangerous not to do so. Thats his call, and I don't believe for a moment that you never make that decision (as the light changes to amber and you'd be through it before you could stop - it happens).
> 
> If it had turned red then it would have gone through amber first, in which case it would be amber earlier on and he'd have had time (at 15mph ish) to stop.
> 
> This ain't complex; why are you making a big deal of it?



Im not,you are,im saying he acted disgustingly in his way to cause agression from a driver.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Plainly.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> No, the reason why the motorist was aggressive was because he was an a4$£hole. You're incorrect to blame a cyclist for being _trivially_ sarcastic.



It Is trivial to most people,because they see it for what it is,an attempt to get a reaction.But some take it badly and react,which is what some seem to want,i just wonder why?


----------



## Landslide (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> ...i just wonder why?



Because they're @rseholes. I honestly can't think of any other rational explanation.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So your willing to take the risk of the lights changing just as you get there?What would you have done if you were one second later and it had gone red?


Stopped, as I'd have seen it go Amber earlier and been able to stop.

I don't RLJ. 

Period.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Stopped, as I'd have seen it go Amber earlier and been able to stop.
> 
> I don't RLJ.
> 
> Period.



Nor do i


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Im not,you are,im saying he acted disgustingly in his way to cause agression from a driver.



I see, and that isn't making a big deal out of it...


----------



## Cab (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> It Is trivial to most people,because they see it for what it is,an attempt to get a reaction.But some take it badly and react,which is what some seem to want,i just wonder why?



So you agree that it was trivial and that therefore the response was unjustified... And you now can't blame the cyclist so you'll just make the inferrence that he was looking for conflict? How ironic.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

So Col, answer this hypothetical situation. A simple yes or no only, thanks.

You're riding at 15mph, and you come up to a junction. You're on the ASL, you know, the green bit past one stop line and before the cycle stop line. The light changes to orange. Do you stop?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're riding at 15mph, and you come up to a junction. You're on the ASL, you know, the green bit past one stop line and before the cycle stop line. The light changes to orange. Do you stop?


only with the use of a car/wall blocking the road...


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> I see, and that isn't making a big deal out of it...



When you say big deal,what is it you mean?Iv been answering in this debate as best i can,you keep putting questions?



Cab said:


> So you agree that it was trivial and that therefore the response was unjustified... And you now can't blame the cyclist so you'll just make the inferrence that he was looking for conflict? How ironic.



Im not saying it was unjustified and im not agreeing to anything,im saying some take it badly,like this driver,do read the post properly cab


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> only with the use of a car/wall blocking the road...



There you go,answered in the reply box,you know,the one thats white and you type in.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

LOL, the avoidance!!

OK, that's pretty much confirmed that you know you are in the wrong with your amber gambler comments, and that you were trolling. Perhaps you ought to apologise to Sharky!


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, the avoidance!!
> 
> OK, that's pretty much confirmed that you know you are in the wrong with your amber gambler comments, and that you were trolling. Perhaps you ought to apologise to Sharky!



I think thats a bit over the top,i wasnt trolling,i gave my opinion,which still is the same,no one needs to apologise to anyone,unless sharky wants to apologise to the driver?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

No apology required. Col gave his opinion and, no matter how ill informed and generally wrong, it is still his opinion and he's entitled to it.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> No apology required. Col gave his opinion and, no matter how ill informed and generally wrong, it is still his opinion and he's entitled to it.



Why cant you have that attitude to car drivers on the road

Yes now apologise mikey


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

So not only are your posts not backed up by the highway code, but you've effectively admitted you would do exactly the same as Sharky yourself. That's just trolling.

Of course it's always possible that what really happened is different from Sharky's description, LOL!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Of course it's always possible that what really happened is different from Sharky's description, LOL!


 

How dare you!!!!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

Actually it was a 7 year old in his go cart on the pavement. I could have taken him if his 9 year old Sister hadn't been there....


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> So not only are your posts not backed up by the highway code, but you've effectively admitted you would do exactly the same as Sharky yourself. That's just trolling.
> 
> Of course it's always possible that what really happened is different from Sharky's description, LOL!



Iv already said i wouldnt go through amber,and i definitely wouldnt purposely try to wind anyone up,that answer was a joke reply to counter your joke question pointing out to me what an asl looks like,now you are really trolling arnt you
Come on you know you want to apologise.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

I think the point that BM is trying to make, Col, is that if you are approaching at speed and there is no chance you are going to stop... what do you do? You *have* to run the amber. There's no choice about it other than slamming your brakes on and ending up in the middle of a junction.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> I think the point that BM is trying to make, Col, is that if you are approaching at speed and there is no chance you are going to stop... what do you do? You *have* to run the amber. There's no choice about it other than slamming your brakes on and ending up in the middle of a junction.



I agree with you,but he wanted a yes no answer to a trick question,which i couldnt give,as i always slow for lights.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (2 Sep 2008)

You always slow for lights??? 

How bizarre. They should be set up such that if you are travelling at the speed limit you should have distance/time to stop once it changes to Amber... thus there's no need to slow down in expectation.

I would think that'd be a hazard to other road users who are not expecting you to brake for a Green light.

Each to their own, I guess.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> You always slow for lights???
> 
> How bizarre. They should be set up such that if you are travelling at the speed limit you should have distance/time to stop once it changes to Amber... thus there's no need to slow down in expectation.
> 
> ...



Its not often im doing the speed limit on my bike.I think your talking about cars?


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Its not often im doing the speed limit on my bike.I think your talking about cars?



Col, you need to get out on the bike more - stop being antagonistic.

Speed limit on my bike - do it all the time, and have been known to go over that at certain junctions to ensure I get a good position. Where this incident happened is a very busy road, so stopping from 30 wouldn't be easy when the lights are on amber - I'd suggest Sharky would have got rear ended had he attempted to stop, by one of the three cars that followed.......


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

fossyant said:


> Col, you need to get out on the bike more - stop being antagonistic.
> 
> Speed limit on my bike - do it all the time, and have been known to go over that at certain junctions to ensure I get a good position. Where this incident happened is a very busy road, so stopping from 30 wouldn't be easy when the lights are on amber - I'd suggest Sharky would have got rear ended had he attempted to stop, by one of the three cars that followed.......



Then your very fit,i do about fifteen most of the time,faster down hills,but never 30 on a flat clear road,well not for a long time,i thought he said he was doing 15?Emergency braking from 30 would have been dangerous.So your reason in calling me antagonistic is?


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2008)

Eight pages sir......mostly you having a go....?

Despite the 15 mph, as the cars were close, and three jumped the lights, I think trying to stop would have been more dangerous for Sharky.. I know the road, it's very busy, a rat run into Manchester.... far safer to nip through - on amber, not red, like at least two of the cars did !


----------



## yenrod (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> So why was there a massive tv add saying not to do it some time ago as it is dangerous to do it,you can use that excuse for a few things,if its dangerous you obviously were driving in an unsafe manner,are we not supposed to slow down as we approach lights,to be ready for a change so we can stop?Instead of racing through amber and then purposely winding up others who followed you through.?And then seemingly likeing the fact that the driver could have a heart attack because of your nasty behaviour,i hope someone is there with a helmet cam when you do it to someone who takes you to task for your disgusting behaviour.*No wonder we are disliked more and more on the roads*.



2nd'd.


----------



## yenrod (2 Sep 2008)

Well the way things are on the road today is the prevelant attitude: 'i couldnt give a toss about you unless it comes down to the legality of the situation'.

Instead of: i'll give you pelnty of room and have the patience too also as I'm a lot safer than you cyclists!'


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

fossyant said:


> Eight pages sir......mostly you having a go....?
> 
> Despite the 15 mph, as the cars were close, and three jumped the lights, I think trying to stop would have been more dangerous for Sharky.. I know the road, it's very busy, a rat run into Manchester.... far safer to nip through - on amber, not red, like at least two of the cars did !





> I like it when the drivers get so mad that they start bouncing in their seat.
> 
> It's funny.



Eight pages sir,of answering what i was asked,or dont you answer if asked something?
Its as usual gone off from my main topic,that is he purposely wound the driver up and enjoyed the result,which i stand by,and what would your opinion on that be?,the amber is a side line which is what you have latched onto,and well thrown in mr p


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> Calm down col.
> 
> Do we sit back and not berate drivers for fear of their own actions resulting in a temper tantrum? Or even worse, a telling off from you?
> 
> ...



Im saying how uncalled for goading someone is on the roads,more so when it hasnt anything to do with us,i find plenty to laugh at where a drivers antics are concerned,but making it happen in such a way as to cause bad reactions,unbelievable.And im not telling anyone off,or is that thrown in to elicit a reaction?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> Uncalled for because of the reaction that it brought?
> 
> What do you think of the couple of drivers a week who shake their heads at you patronisingly?




I havnt seen that and blimey your eyesight is good ,and if i did i would ignore it anyway,or am i supposed to do something back ,just to get back at them?


----------



## goo_mason (2 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I havnt seen that and blimey your eyesight is good ,and if i did i would ignore it anyway,or am i supposed to do something back ,just to get back at them?



Shake your glasses up and down and comment on their short, fat hairy legs ?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> No, you just ignore it and carry on. Unlike the monkey of a driver in this OP.



So you think its not very sensible either?to wind people up on the roads?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

goo_mason said:


> Shake your glasses up and down and comment on their short, fat hairy legs ?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> I'm saying that if you can't cope with a bit of banter on the road without losing your ability to drive safely then you should question whether or not you should really be there.



True,so knowing there are people out there who will go off it,is it still sensible to do it,because most who do it know exactly what they are doing and why.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> Without being there I don't consider myself qualified to comment. I've seen positive outcomes from comments to drivers.



So have i,but not when they are getting called self-gratification artists ect


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> From the OP it appears that he was merely fighting fire with fire.



How so?he admited the car didnt do anything to him?Until after he started that is.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> He shook his head and clapped. The driver lost it and started with the language. Which was returned.



So would it not have been better to not do that in the first place,which made it all happen?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> So we've all got to ride around like silent, submissive voles?
> 
> Or do we enjoy the ride?
> 
> The OP's actions did not _make_ anything happen.




So to enjoy a ride we have to wind someone up till they lose it?
and yes it seems what he did did make it happen.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Sep 2008)

FFS you're not still going on about it Col??? Blimey.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> I've not said that we have to wind someone up until they lose it. That's not what happened.
> 
> And no, the OP most certainly did not _make _the response happen. We are all responsible for our actions. And reactions.



So you think the driver would have done that if he hadnt have wound him up?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> FFS you're not still going on about it Col??? Blimey.



Fraid so,just answering and asking about questions.Just seems mr p doesnt see that winding someone up is your fault if you do it.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> I'm saying that the driver had a choice, and is responsible for his actions.



What about the cyclist?Did he have a choice also?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> Yes, but the cyclist didn't make the driver do anything. The driver chose to act in such a manner.




Come on mr p,Why do you think the driver reacted that way?


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> You tell me. I wouldn't have. Would you? was it a proportionate response?




It seems to me you dont want to agree that when you wind someone up it can cause more problems,and it would be your fault.Because there are people out there that wont take being ridiculed or called names,and when the one nutter that you happen to pick on to play mind games with decides to stick your head up your own arse,you would still be shouting "but i didnt do anything",and im almost sure that it will happen one day,to one clever person who thinks they can do it and get away with it,and i would even bet it wouldnt get told on here in all its truth.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

> We're each responsible for our own actions. Regardless of provocation. Provocation does have an influence on how easy it is to control one's actions. But the fact remains.
> 
> The OP describes an incident which happens countless times daily between road users. The response was completely irrational. The driver has obvious temper issues. And these are not the fault of the cyclist. They were there before they met.




Yes it can be irrational,and even knowing that some still do it,like i said its a risky thing when you happen upon the local nutter,and just as a query,how do you think you would feel,if you caused a real heart attack in an innocent because of winding him up,and claiming it was his fault,he had a choice,he has temper issues he should have been able to control ect,?Great excuses for being clever and a wind up merchant.



> I missed your answer to this.



I wouldnt react to this sort.They have the problem,when they feel the need to ,make thier feelings known,even to vehicles that havnt done anything to them.


----------



## col (2 Sep 2008)

But like mikey said,are we really still going on about this,its obvious you think the wind up merchant who inflames a situation is innocent,so there is no point in me trying to convince you of that error.ill leave it there,and just ask you to look out for the results of that innocent action that might get someone seriously hurt one day.


----------



## jasper (3 Sep 2008)

More to the point...why was it dangerous for the car to RLJ/what did he do wrong? He (I presume) saw that the way was clear and made a judgement that it was more dangerous for him, in his opinion, to stop than to risk a RLJ. Well that's the excuse some cyclist use on this forum...


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

jasper said:


> More to the point...why was it dangerous for the car to RLJ/what did he do wrong? He (I presume) saw that the way was clear and made a judgement that it was more dangerous for him, in his opinion, to stop than to risk a RLJ. Well that's the excuse some cyclist use on this forum...




Good,point


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> See it for what it is col and stop being so dramatic.
> 
> A cyclist commented on some very poor driving. That's all. We're not talking about persistent goading, but one harmless gesture. Followed by more insulting behaviour following the lead of the driver.
> 
> ...



Clever word play,i hope he does the same to a van full of builders who do something he feels is wrong even if they are no where near him,but i doubt it very much,but non the less,you know what im talking about,just your not willing to see my point,and insist on the usual.Now your even sorry im dead,very well said


----------



## snorri (3 Sep 2008)

Regardless of what has gone before, I don't think we should condone the behaviour of a person in charge of a moving vehicle on public roads, be it 2 wheeled or 4 wheeled who takes his hands off the steering controls and claps whilst making eye contact with the driver of another moving vehicle. 
These people should be in a circus.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

snorri said:


> Regardless of what has gone before, I don't think we should condone the behaviour of a person in charge of a moving vehicle on public roads, be it 2 wheeled or 4 wheeled who takes his hands off the steering controls and claps whilst making eye contact with the driver of another moving vehicle.
> These people should be in a circus.


That's just made me laugh - thanks for that.

So now me doing no handed on a straight road now is dangerous.... I suppose I could have hit some mystery pedestrian who chose to run into the road, or I could have hit a pothole and fallen off thus endangering the traffic who would have had to take evasive action...oh, hang on though, they jumped the red light so in actual fact shouldn't have been there at all...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> How so?he admited the car didnt do anything to him?Until after he started that is.


The car jumped the red light - I applauded his excellent driving skills... anything after that was down to his abusive shouting and angry beeping and trying to intimidate me, I merely shook my head, laughed and shook my hand as though polishing a banana.

Edit - oh yes, and some comments about his lack of driving skill


----------



## fossyant (3 Sep 2008)

Sharkey - Col's not arrived for the day shift yet - I'll check in at lunch and see how many pages he's stretched it to....


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

More comments about me being despicable for winding up the driver who did nothing


----------



## John the Monkey (3 Sep 2008)

> The problem is that you are making the ridiculous suggestion that people aren't in control of their reactions, and can advocate all responsibility by blaming whoever they choose. That somehow I can force a driver to do something with the lightest of comments.


It may not be right, but over reaction on the road (especially by the drivers of motor vehicles) is pretty much the norm. (Witness people who get in each other's way walking down a street in opposite directions smiling embarrassedly as they try to pass first one way then the other, put the same two people in cars and it's gesticulation and swearing should one encroach on the other's space). 

The only way I can think of to put it is that the threshold of provocation seems far lower out on the road, and the acceptance of such behaviour far higher than it is in other areas of our public lives. Which isn't to say that it isn't wrong still, but the de facto situation seems to me that;

a) It doesn't take much to set them off, even when they are in the wrong
 If it goes pear shaped, you won't get much help from the authorities, or sympathy from folk at large.


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Sep 2008)

c) They weigh 1 1/2 tons, give or take


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Nope. I can see your point. Never said otherwise. See post. 111
> 
> The problem is that you are making the ridiculous suggestion that people aren't in control of their reactions, and can advocate all responsibility by blaming whoever they choose. That somehow I can force a driver to do something with the lightest of comments.
> 
> ...



There are people that are not in control as much as most,You make light out of winding someone up,yet you know the effect it can have,and do it wanting the less in control to lose control ,because its your way of getting back at a bad driver or a simple mistake,and then you enjoy the result,the silly example of jumping of a cliff shows me you are scraping the barrel a bit to justify causing someone to lose thier temper is not your fault,when its exactly what you want.Again the rather pathetic example of am i choosing to write speaks oceans.Im not uncomfortable with any of this,as i dont try to upset people on purpose,i would say you are more uncomfortable,as you seem to be avoiding answering whether winding up is a stupid thing to do. Again your going down the route of assumption and trying to get a response,it seems thats the only way you can debate,do you have a temper issue?
If you dont want to admit that you or someone else have done this,thats ok,because using as you put it,an innocent way to get people to lose their tempers,and then claiming its not your fault is a true cowards way,and i wouldnt want to admit to that either,a real show of common sense?I think not,more a show of someone incapable of handling a situation sensibly,and being confrontational in your so called innocent way.And all these sort are doing is adding to the numbers of cyclist haters amongst the driving community,and making things worse for us all.
But hey you have a mind of your own and can choose what you do,so if you do this type of thing,but are unwilling to admit to it,then carry on,its your choice,but when you end up having a serious problem with someone you tried it on,just think back to my reasoning,there is no need for it,and youve brought it on yourself
Oh and im still alive by the way


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> The car jumped the red light - I applauded his excellent driving skills... anything after that was down to his abusive shouting and angry beeping and trying to intimidate me, I merely shook my head, laughed and shook my hand as though polishing a banana.
> 
> Edit - oh yes, and some comments about his lack of driving skill



Even though you probably know this, you intimidated him first and knew exactly what you were doing and the reaction it may cause,so i really am curious as to why?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

fossyant said:


> Sharkey - Col's not arrived for the day shift yet - I'll check in at lunch and see how many pages he's stretched it to....



Strange how after getting a bad reaction and having a laugh about it,no one admits to doing it and claims its the drivers fault who they intimidated in the first place.
If only someone will admit to being the trouble maker that would end this thread for me


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Sep 2008)

Although I don't condone the driver jumping a red, and I accept that Sharky was probably too close to the lights when they changed to stop, there does seem to be very little point in deliberately winding the driver up after the event. No wonder people see us as a little sanctimonious sometimes.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2008)

You're going on worse than Cab does atm Col.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Sep 2008)

But he does have a point. Why deliberately go out of your way to try and wind up other road users?


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Sep 2008)

+1 ...if only with a view to self-preservation


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're going on worse than Cab does atm Col.



Now thats just below the belt
Why wont any of them admit to being trouble makers,because thats what it is when they do what they do?


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2008)

Well I agree in general, although in this specific situation I don't think the OP's reaction was unreasonable.

The point more is that Col is going on like a burst backside, as well as talking utter bollocks on the amber gambler stuff. In that respect, he's just trying to wind up the OP, and is guilty of exactly what he's complaining about, except minus any justification.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Well I agree in general, although in this specific situation I don't think the OP's reaction was unreasonable.
> 
> The point more is that Col is going on like a burst backside, as well as talking utter bollocks on the amber gambler stuff. In that respect, he's just trying to wind up the OP, and is guilty of exactly what he's complaining about, except minus any justification.



A burst backside? thats a new one on me 
Ok im sorry,im wrong about the amber,now lets stop using it as a sideline to the real question,and if i got an honest answer i would be very happy,well id probably fall of my seat first(or my burst backside)


----------



## Origamist (3 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're going on worse than Cab does atm Col.




That's pretty rich coming from you! If someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of trolling, if they reply to your posts you accuse them of being a stalker, if they continue to challenge your beliefs, you put them on ignore! What a piece of work....


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You're going on worse than Cab does atm Col.



Whats the phrase I'm looking for here...

Ahh, yes, Up Yours Mikey.

I feel better now.


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> But he does have a point. Why deliberately go out of your way to try and wind up other road users?



Why misinterpret the mildest, tiniest form of sarcasm or comment as a deliberate attempt to get a reaction?


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Whats the phrase I'm looking for here...
> 
> Ahh, yes, Up Yours Mikey.
> 
> I feel better now.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Why misinterpret the mildest, tiniest form of sarcasm or comment as a deliberate attempt to get a reaction?




Its really unbelievable how what some do is made to seem so innocent,when they know what they are doing,and want to get as much reaction as possible ,because its funny.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Why misinterpret the mildest, tiniest form of sarcasm or comment as a deliberate attempt to get a reaction?



"Mildest, tiniest form of sarcasm"? Come on. Why turn around to a driver (who, fair enough, has jumped a red light) and start making wristy gestures and commenting on his driving? If that's not "a deliberate attempt to get a reaction" I don't know what is, especially given that the first thing Sharky did was to come here and tell us all about the great reaction he got from a driver. Apart from anything else, it strikes me as very unwise to start raising the blood pressure of someone behind you who is in charge of a vehicle. Like poking a wasps' nest with a stick is unwise.


----------



## Nigeyy (3 Sep 2008)

I tend to agree. Provoking (and I would say what was described does come under provoking) a person driving a large vehicle relative to a bicycle just isn't wise, even if the driving actions of that person were poor.

This does raise an interesting point though -if nobody dares to criticize you, do standards drop due to lack of peer pressure? Was there ever a time when you could criticize or shame someone for their lack of consideration or attention? I do see the point that if you are so timid that you never call out somebody for doing something wrong, then society could then be on a downward spiral.....

Perhaps it's more a case of how that defines me when I say I wouldn't do that -to me it's just not worth it -but I wonder if that's not a good thing.






Rhythm Thief said:


> it strikes me as very unwise to start raising the blood pressure of someone behind you who is in charge of a vehicle. Like poking a wasps' nest with a stick is unwise.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Is there no one with the guts to admit to doing it on purpose?And to give the reason why they feel the need?
Very dissapointing,i thought we might have got to some real reasons and maybe even solutions to stop some doing it,without blaming others on the road for their anger,but it seems its a very sensitive topic,and it gets very defensive about doing it.I believe those who do it have anger control problems,and use this as an outlet.
The one thing i think we can say,is that even those who do it know that its wrong,or we would have plenty admitting to it and giving their reasons,and as far as im concerned,this is the end of trying to get someone to admit it,as its plain that noone want s to.But if more defensive posts are made i will respond,but not just to get the pages going fossy,but to respond to others posts


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> And I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be admitting to or denying. Have you asked me?





Ok lets make it simple,would you say that winding someone up so as to get a reaction or cause them to lose their temper is bad or good?

Still alive here.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Define "winding someone up". Make the distinction between possible motives for shaking your head at a driver. Is it to wind him up or berate?
> 
> Try and think properly about your claim that I can _make_ someone do something in this kind of situation. I can't, and you know it. The reality, being provocation, is different and I have explained this very clearly and acknolwedged it. You need to accept the difference between these two.
> 
> ...



Does this mean your saying its wrong? The shop assistant isnt behind you and nothing to do with you.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> It's not the best thing to do. Is this what happened here?





 ok you still dont want to answer.


----------



## small fish (3 Sep 2008)

OP - sh4rky - It's a very funny story - and well told!

I too have a devil side  which occasionally manifests itself in the form of antagonistic shouts and gestures to other road users - and has on a couple of occasions led to drivers chasing and threatening to beat me up.

I'm small and weedy so this is not a good thing... luckily I can ride pretty quick... but I really don't like the fact that I do this and wish that I didn't. 

Recently, in stop start traffic very close to where I live I slapped the door of an Audi S4, the second time it passed me with 6" to spare rather than wait 5 seconds for an oncoming car to pass. The driver went absolutely mental and basically I realised too late that he looked like a serious gangster/psycho. He got stuck in traffic and I got home in time to see him driving up and down my road 3 times, presumably looking for me... So now I cack myself every time I see an Audi and have a (slightly irrational) fear of being mowed down by gangsters... 

So testosterone, adrenaline, whatever it is that makes some of us occasionally antagonise cagers... never forget that people who drive twatty dangerous anti social vehicles are generally twatty dangerous anti social people...!! I learned my lesson big time, the whole experience really shook me up, and hopefully I will keep a lid on my indignation in future!!


----------



## BentMikey (3 Sep 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> This does raise an interesting point though -if nobody dares to criticize you, do standards drop due to lack of peer pressure



I believe peer pressure has a huge huge influence on people. The signs are very obvious as a teacher - just praise one person's particular good skill, and most of the class start trying to emulate that person.

This is why most of my road interactions tend to be positive. I'm defo not averse to pointing out mistakes though, and I do it on purpose. Most of them are for things such as a too-close overtake, red light jumping (by both drivers and cyclists), and mobile phone usage. I do think it's better to be polite and friendly, as virtually no-one responds well to sarcasm/strong castigation/swearing type stuff, and my goal is for them to feel pressure and to learn.


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Sep 2008)

* Am I evil?*

No! Let them stew in their little cages.

small fish I have never whacked anybodies car ever intentionally,unintentionally yes.I have seen other cyclists do it and see very negative reactions from this.


----------



## tdr1nka (3 Sep 2008)

small fish said:


> OP - sh4rky - It's a very funny story - and well told!
> 
> I too have a devil side  which occasionally manifests itself in the form of antagonistic shouts and gestures to other road users - and has on a couple of occasions led to drivers chasing and threatening to beat me up.
> 
> ...



Well said small fish, I too have been chased by a driver I gave the one finger salute to.


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Sep 2008)

I had a go at a driver once for stopping right at a bus stop the one at Mile End Tube coming towards Bow,then a bus got involved.Wondered why the bus driver was faffing about and overtook him on the inside and found the car parked right on the bus stop box.Slammed the front brake on and my back wheel went almost 180 degrees in the air.Stopped about ten yards short.Told the driver that it wasn't a very good place to park and I didn't swear once,then the comedian decided to come after me.


----------



## stephenb (3 Sep 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Well said small fish, I too have been chased by a driver I gave the one finger salute to.



+1. shook head at guy on a mobile phone last Saturday, he slams car to dead halt, gets out and comes charging back with crow bar in hand, did quick 180 and took off down (the shame of it) the footpath so he couldn't run me down from behind. This sort of thing really makes me worry for you guys with the helmet cams; the wrong nutter in the wrong place and you could be . serious.


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Sep 2008)

Lucky he didn't chase you with his mobile phone,he'd be faster.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> My position is very clear.
> 
> Yours isn't. You're talking about people causing deaths, in the midst of discussions ranging from drivers being given funny looks to polishing bananas. You're claiming that our actions on a bike that result in drivers losing their temper should be avoided. Well that's all of us off the road then. As I said, I've had drivers lose it because I pulled into an ASL in front of them.
> 
> ...



We all know about the angry motorist that doesnt like being beaten by a bike ect ect.And my extreme example of a heart attack was just that,but again,you clutch onto anything to try to ridicule the real question.Im asking you if its wrong to wind people up on purpose or right?No muddle there as far as im concerned.You can dance around it as much as you want,but its a simple question that you still seem to want to avoid answering,i answered your new post where you didnt catch my answer,its only polite to do the same of mine isnt it?
So is it wrong or right ?

Still alive by the way.


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Sep 2008)

*We all know about the angry motorist that doesnt like being beaten by a bike ect ect.*

Is the mentality that low out there?

WTF am I asking this?


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

> I'll remind you of the time when, in a stand-off over right of way, you stuck your air brakes on and got your thermos out.



Ahh, yes, thanks for that reminder. A genuinely stylish, brilliant story that I'd quite forgotten about


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> We all know about the angry motorist that doesnt like being beaten by a bike ect ect.And my extreme example of a heart attack was just that,but again,you clutch onto anything to try to ridicule the real question.Im asking you if its wrong to wind people up on purpose or right?No muddle there as far as im concerned.You can dance around it as much as you want,but its a simple question that you still seem to want to avoid answering,i answered your new post where you didnt catch my answer,its only polite to do the same of mine isnt it?
> So is it wrong or right ?
> 
> Still alive by the way.



Define 'winding up'. Glances? Concerned looks? Shaking the head? Pointing? Waving? Yelling? What do you mean 'winding up', and are you _really_ saying you never shake your head or show the least emotion on the roads? And, more to the point, do you really believe that such a thing is never helpful?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Define 'winding up'. Glances? Concerned looks? Shaking the head? Pointing? Waving? Yelling? What do you mean 'winding up', and are you _really_ saying you never shake your head or show the least emotion on the roads? And, more to the point, do you really believe that such a thing is never helpful?



Im not saying anything ,assumption on your part again.Can you answer the question,or will you go off and avoid doing that by asking something else again?As a mask to answering.Here it is again
Is it right or wrong to wind someone up on purpose to get a reaction?

Taking a while?Its not a hard question.


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Im not saying anything



And yet, strangely, you still find something to post about.



> ,assumption on your part again.Can you answer the question,or will you go off and avoid doing that by asking something else again?As a mask to answering.Here it is again
> Is it right or wrong to wind someone up on purpose to get a reaction?
> 
> Taking a while?Its not a hard question.



I'm trying to define the question so it is one worth answering. How are you defining this 'winding up'? I've given you examples, what do you _mean_?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> And yet, strangely, you still find something to post about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to define the question so it is one worth answering. How are you defining this 'winding up'? I've given you examples, what do you _mean_?




There you have it,a blatant attempt to avoid


Oh and let mr p know im alive,im sure he was worried earlier


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> There you have it,a blatant attempt to avoid
> 
> 
> Oh and let mr p know im alive,im sure he was worried earlier



I see, so asking to clarify a loaded question is now avoidance. You're familiar with 'have you stopped beating your wife'?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> "Mildest, tiniest form of sarcasm"? Come on. Why turn around to a driver (who, fair enough, has jumped a red light) and start making wristy gestures and commenting on his driving?



I only originally applauded his driving whilst shaking my head - that's all.

When he started shouting and beeping and gesticulating as he passed I shouted that he'd run the red light and suggested his love of ononism, much the same as he was suggesting towards me whilst driving away.


----------



## hackbike 6 (3 Sep 2008)

Slight lack of hand signals there.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> I see, so asking to clarify a loaded question is now avoidance. You're familiar with 'have you stopped beating your wife'?



Im not,what does it mean?

Still havnt answered either eh?
Nor has mr p


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

Okay Col - here goes.

Is it wrong to deliberately wind someone up looking for a reaction? I'd say "yes" pretty much all of the time... but here's the tricky bit, you need some form of context around it.

I don't see my initial applause and shaking of head as "winding up" - it was a display of my displeasure at his low standard of driving. No, it didn't directly affect me, but this doesn't mean I have to ignore it - where would the world be if we all went round ignoring anything that didn't directly affect us (would you assist someone in trouble or walk by as it didn't affect you??).

The following gestures and remarks were both in reply to his intimidation tactics (beeping and shouting) and also, I must admit, to wind him further up because by that time he was both genuinely amusing me with his complete over-reaction, and also annoying me as he seemed to think he was superior to me (I was just a "f*cking cyclist") and that he was perfectly at right to sail through a red light.

So, I don't class my initial gestures as 'winding him up', but after that they were indeed so.

Yes, it could have all gone pear shaped, but I'll obviously have to deal with that if and when it happens - I will not be silenced just because of the thought that someone may violently disagree with me.


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> Im not,what does it mean?
> 
> Still havnt answered either eh?
> Nor has mr p



No one will answer your question because like 'did you stop beating your wife?' it is a _loaded_ question. To try to unload it I sought clarity on what you mean 'wind up', but rather than be constructive and clarify you have instead chosen to show your discursive ineptitude by whinging on that your loaded question was not answered. Grow out of it.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Okay Col - here goes.
> 
> Is it wrong to deliberately wind someone up looking for a reaction? I'd say "yes" pretty much all of the time... but here's the tricky bit, you need some form of context around it.
> 
> ...




Thank you,the first real honest answer,it is wrong to do this.Whether you like it or not,your head shaking a clapping got his response,Im sure you knew this,and if you had minded your own business,i would guess this would never have happened but you just carried on enjoying it as you went.im still curious why you felt you had to do this in the first place,instead of just going on your way,i mean he didnt cause anyone problems,he was behind you,so you had to look behind and make the effort to intimidate him,so why would you start this incident?I notice you refer again to his low standard of driving,how do you come to this,unless you have eyes in the back of your head,and yes he probably ran a red,but that doesnt mean he cant drive,it means he did what you nearly did barring a second or two,he probably knew the lights also and knew he was ok to get through,could that be the case?
You say you wont be silenced if someone violently disagrees with you?I would agree and back you,if you had a genuine reason to do it,but this wasnt,you started it and are now trying to justify your actions.
But my respect for admitting its wrong.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> No one will answer your question because like 'did you stop beating your wife?' it is a _loaded_ question. To try to unload it I sought clarity on what you mean 'wind up', but rather than be constructive and clarify you have instead chosen to show your discursive ineptitude by whinging on that your loaded question was not answered. Grow out of it.




Still wont answer then?
your the only one whinging and now comes the insults,how predictable
Why not just answer ,you know what the question is,your just being awkward


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> i mean he didnt cause anyone problems, he was behind you,so you had to look behind and *make the effort to intimidate him*,so why would you start this incident?


Huh??? Me clapping and shaking my head somehow intimidates him? I think he needs to toughen up a bit then.



> I notice you refer again to his low standard of driving,how do you come to this... and yes he probably ran a red, but that doesn't mean he cant drive


Never said he *can't* drive, I just said that it is poor driving. Running a red is not good driving. Simple really.



> it means he did what you nearly did barring a second or two,he probably knew the lights also and knew he was ok to get through,could that be the case?


Errr, no. I made it through quite legally. He did not. Regardless of whether he knew the timing of the lights he had enough time to be able to stop legally and safely once it had gone to Amber - he chose not to, he chose to run the red light. Still, as long as it's only a second or two I guess it's okay in your book...



> But my respect for admitting its wrong.


I don't actually recall me saying it's wrong (what I did) - I did say that deliberately winding someone up could be wrong.. but again, it's all about context.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Huh??? Me clapping and shaking my head somehow intimidates him? I think he needs to toughen up a bit then.
> 
> Never said he *can't* drive, I just said that it is poor driving. Running a red is not good driving. Simple really.
> 
> ...




You didnt say "could be",you said "yes pretty much all the time"check your own post.Ok i misread your post,your obviously changing your mind.
How do you know whats in my book,i gave you a possibility and asked if that could be the case?I can see we are wasting our fingers here,i thought you had admitted to it,never mind eh?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Not dancing around anything. I thought I'd made it perfectly clear where I'm coming from.
> 
> I asked you to define what you see to be 'winding up'. I also asked you to consider what actually happened and the motives behind it.
> 
> Until you answer this, as you seem reluctant to, we can't move on.



I learned the hard way how you and cab operate,and i wont be pulled in to be dissected, so if you feel you cant answer a simple question,which im sure you and most know what it is about,then so be it,keep avoiding it with your games,i think we can all draw our own conclusions this way


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Not dancing around anything. I thought I'd made it perfectly clear where I'm coming from.
> 
> I asked you to define what you see to be 'winding up'. I also asked you to consider what actually happened and the motives behind it.
> 
> ...



you caught me out there with your edit

Ill ask once more then i wont ask again,as your starting your offshoot games and avoiding answering anyway,so here you go one last time.

Winding someone up to react is right or wrong?


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

col said:


> I learned the hard way how you and cab operate,and i wont be pulled in to be dissected,



Heaven forbid you be distracted by something as meaningless as a defined, meaningful question rather than a vague loaded one (did you stop beating your wife).



> so if you feel you cant answer a simple question,which im sure you and most know what it is about,then so be it,keep avoiding it with your games,i think we can all draw our own conclusions this way



Yes, I'm afraid (for your sake) that we all can.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> It's not a competition. And you're still funny. Anything other than the answer you want is diversion.
> 
> Put it into context. Which winding up are you talking about?
> 
> ...





Cab said:


> Heaven forbid you be distracted by something as meaningless as a defined, meaningful question rather than a vague loaded one (did you stop beating your wife).
> 
> 
> Still alive here
> ...




 Ok ill humour you a little longer,your both twisting it round,trying to say i have to answer before you have the ability to answer,ok here it is in even simpler form.
Winding up to get a reaction of anger,right or wrong.?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Col, let's clear this up then, seeing as you don't seem to grasp how debate goes.
> 
> Are you talking about the first actions of the cyclist? If you are, the pre-question is whether this is considered to be winding up.
> 
> ...



Even simpler format for you

winding up to anger by a cyclist in the first instance,right or wrong?
You surely cant not understand now?


----------



## Cab (3 Sep 2008)

> edit: I really don't know why I'm making this effort with you, as I've already commented on both scenarios.



Because you want to give him further opportunity to make himself look comically inept in totally lacking in understanding of how to debate?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Cab said:


> Heaven forbid you be distracted by something as meaningless as a defined, meaningful question rather than a vague loaded one (did you stop beating your wife).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm afraid (for your sake) that we all can.



Glad you agree inearly fell off my chair there


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

Come on you two,get an answer in,i and a lot of others probably want this thread to end,but you keep pretending you dont understand the question,surely you can now?

winding up to anger by a cyclist in the first instance,right or wrong?
You surely cant not understand now


Iv just realised why your taking so long,your thinking of ways to dissect and question the question arnt you

Oh and did i mention,IM STILL ALIVE


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Been there, answered that col.
> 
> It seems you're telling off the OP for something he didn't do.
> 
> Now catch up.



I take it you still wont answer
dissapointing but expected
If your having trouble understanding,im sure someone might help you


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> OK. If you insist.
> 
> Col, there was no deliberate winding up in the first instance in this thread.
> 
> Why are you asking an irrelevant question?



Very good mr p,nicely thought out there
so lets just say that this is a question about no one in particular,ok?

winding up to anger by a cyclist in the first instance,right or wrong?


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> I've answered col. And some more.
> 
> Now run along and have another look, there's a good boy. There's no need for me to repeat myself when it's already been said.




Calm down mr p,its you thats refusing to answer a very simple question,well it is now i suppose,seeing as you couldnt grasp it earlier.


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> I've answered that. At least once. Let's see if you can find it.




No ta,iv had enough of humouring you now,its obvious your just playing games and being silly,so ill leave it there

I forgot to mention,IM STILL ALIVE


----------



## col (3 Sep 2008)

> Your loss. Your wasted opportunity to engage in useful discussion.
> 
> Never mind.




I know my loss


----------



## shimano (4 Sep 2008)

I've read this thread through and pondered its possibilities but I keep coming back to the inescapable fact that a car driver is inside 1 to 2 tons of metal whilst a cyclist  is astride a few bits of tubing. I'm scared of nothing (except trees - google 'Day of the Triffids' to see why) or no man (so far ) but a loony in a car can seriously mess up your day; why bother, just to make a point?


----------



## col (4 Sep 2008)

shimano said:


> I've read this thread through and pondered its possibilities but I keep coming back to the inescapable fact that a car driver is inside 1 to 2 tons of metal whilst a cyclist  is astride a few bits of tubing. I'm scared of nothing (except trees - google 'Day of the Triffids' to see why) or no man (so far ) but a loony in a car can seriously mess up your day; why bother, just to make a point?





This is the holy grail of answers


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (4 Sep 2008)

shimano said:


> ...why bother, just to make a point?


Because if no-one makes the point then Mr Bully-in-my-car just carries on doing exactly what he wants.

Think back to all the anti drink driving advertising - why bother with that? Over the years it has become more socially unacceptable to drink and drive mainly, I would argue, because of this raising of awareness and turning people against it... then peer pressure comes to bear and people don't do it (as much). If no-one had bothered to point out that this behaviour was wrong and illegal (much like the running of the red light) then it would have continued.

Slightly tenuous argument, but the sentiment and logic is correct.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Sep 2008)

Sharky, a change in attitude isn't going to come from someone on a bike pointing out that they've run a red light though. It's come from proper enforcement of the law, and people taking the consequences of breaking it more seriously than they do now.

A lot of traffic law seems to be regarded as breakable, so long as no one gets hurt. That may have been the case with drink driving in the past too. In that case, the vast majority are now at a state of mind where they wouldn't dream of driving when over the limit AT ALL, partly because of the perceived danger to themselves and others, and partly because of the legal and social consequences of being caught and actually punished.

In contrast, there's lots of other traffic law that can be broken more or less with impunity - the likelihood of punishment being small, and the legal and social consequences minor.


----------



## Cab (4 Sep 2008)

shimano said:


> I've read this thread through and pondered its possibilities but I keep coming back to the inescapable fact that a car driver is inside 1 to 2 tons of metal whilst a cyclist  is astride a few bits of tubing. I'm scared of nothing (except trees - google 'Day of the Triffids' to see why) or no man (so far ) but a loony in a car can seriously mess up your day; why bother, just to make a point?



You assume you're more likely to be harmed by someone if you stand up to them just a smidgin? So, a tiny glance or a look or a shake of the head is a mistake? I disagree. I think that if you don't stand up to someone who is endangering you then they'll continue to do it. To be safe you have to be visible and assertive, if you start getting all passive then you may as well lie down and let the bully stamp all over you.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (4 Sep 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Because if no-one makes the point then Mr Bully-in-my-car just carries on doing exactly what he wants.



But a) he may well have had a good look and decided it was safe to rlj in this instance, just as many people on bikes do every day (and some people on this forum use that very argument to justify it), and  you're not going to change his mind by making the self-gratification artist sign at him and shaking your head. All he would have thought afterwards is "what was that dickhead on the bike on about?" (no disrespect intended). Sorry.


----------



## bryce (4 Sep 2008)

21 pages on this thread in a few days?? If we had this conversation in a pub, someone tactful would have waited for a pregnant pause and changed the subject by now.

If someone wants to break traffic laws, then they are able to do so freely.

If, by their illegal actions, a law-abiding person is injured/ killed then they will be wholly culpable. Let that rest on their conscience and wallet.


----------



## Maz (4 Sep 2008)

bryce said:


> 21 pages on this thread in a few days?? If we had this conversation in a pub, someone tactful would have waited for a pregnant pause and changed the subject by now.


Did you hear about Curbishley resigning from West Ham? I reckon Keegan's on his way out too, soon.


----------



## Aperitif (4 Sep 2008)

Maz said:


> Did you hear about Curbishley resigning from West Ham? I reckon Keegan's on his way out too, soon.



The new guy has a big forehead. He should have been made manager of Nottingham Forhead FWIW.


----------



## Maz (4 Sep 2008)

Aperitif said:


> The new guy has a big forehead. He should have been made manager of Nottingham Forhead FWIW.


 
We better knock this on the head before we get banned for being thread saboteurs.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Sep 2008)

Seems to me we all share a responsibility not to 'let bullies walk all over us', but at the same time, polishing bananas in the air may not be the best way to enlighten errant motorists - on the contrary, it may well serve only to entrench them in their anti-social ways. 

FWIW, I do make a point of making people aware of my disapproval of their pig-ignorant behaviour - whether they're drivers, peds or indeed bicycling peeps - but I leave banana-polishing to others, restricting myself generally to the slightest shake of the head, accompanied by a look calculated to express pity rather than anger, as in: 'It can't be easy going thru' life with such a small penis'. Not that it's easy to express an idea of that complexity with a mere glance...but if you get as much practise as I do...


----------



## BentMikey (4 Sep 2008)

> Been there, answered that col.
> 
> It seems you're telling off the OP for something he didn't do.
> 
> Now catch up.



You've taken long enough to come to that conclusion. Same goes for the amber gambler bollocks Col was talking right at the beginning.

I've plonked him now.


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Sep 2008)

An article in the Economist recently concluded that


> _“Managing more cyclists is going to take more than new bike paths or fresh stripes on the roads. It looks as though there is a need, on both sides, for a revolution in manners.”_


(Talking mostly about the US experience of motorist/cyclist conflict)


----------



## col (4 Sep 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You've taken long enough to come to that conclusion. Same goes for the amber gambler bollocks Col was talking right at the beginning.
> 
> I've plonked him now.



How unexpectedEven after i admitted i was wrong about the amber,even though i think it is a dangerous thing to do still,albeit not illegal.
I notice you didnt want to answer either


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (4 Sep 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> But a) he may well have had a good look and decided it was safe to rlj in this instance, just as many people on bikes do every day (and some people on this forum use that very argument to justify it)


I know cyclists do use this "argument", but basically it's because they're too lazy to stop and are, essentially, idiots IMO. The junction in question (assuming you were being serious about him judging it to be safe...) is probably one of the worst junctions to do this. Visibility is good, I'll grant you, but as "our" lights turn Amber there is absolutely minimal delay before the "other" (crossing traffic) lights start to change - it's very close!!! Running a red from "our" side means it is most definitely on Green (or in the last few milliseconds of Red/Amber) on the other side.




> ...and  you're not going to change his mind by making the self-gratification artist sign at him and shaking your head. All he would have thought afterwards is "what was that dickhead on the bike on about?" (no disrespect intended). Sorry.


No apology required - I can see your point, however the initial action was a simple shaking of my head and clapping. He then passed me shouting and beeping and hurling abuse. At this point I shouted "Try stopping at the red light then!!" (or similar, but there was no swearing on my part) and as he started gesticulating I did, indeed, think he was a complete w*nker for his reaction and let him know that too. 

He knew what he did was wrong, he then knew he had been seen doing it by me from my applause and shaking of my head. He then went ballistic, I suppose, to divert any blame and/or feeling of wrong doing away from himself in front of his passenger.

He may or may not adjust his behaviour because of this altercation, but one thing is certain; he wouldn't alter it if no-one said anything and he thought he had gotten away with it unnoticed. 

Who's round is it?? Mine's a pint of Lager, please...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (4 Sep 2008)

Just To Reiterate - I DID NOT POLISH THE BANANA BEFORE HIM.


----------



## tdr1nka (4 Sep 2008)

> It's similar really to the fact that half of this internet rowing would never go on in the pub.



But you would hear it from those on the steps in the park, with cans of cider in paper bags.


----------

