# Is a driver getting out of their car an act of potential aggression?



## gaz (16 Nov 2010)

On my ride home tonight i witnessed a driver pass a cyclist with not much space. The cyclist was overtaking another one and whilst she didn't indicate clearly she didn't swerve around the cyclist suddenly. The driver should have easily been able to anticipate this but choose to ignore it.

As is the case in London, we soon caught up with the driver. The cyclist knocked on his window so she could have a quick chat about his idiotic behaviour. I pulled up at the front of the car just to make sure nothing went sour with this. As it happens the driver gets out of his car and walks towards the female cyclist. I make sure my bike and my self are in his way so he can't get close to her and i make him aware that everything he does is being recorded. He doesn't want to listen and just blames the cyclist for some unknown reason.

He didn't like the cyclist knocking on his window, but how would he like the cyclist knocking off his wing mirror and scratching his paint work when he knocks one over with his appalling driving.

He clearly didn't get the picture as straight afterwards he cut up a cyclist behind me, the cyclist tapped on his bodywork but he didn't want to make a point out of that when we where sitting next to him at the lights.

Video: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frdeRNX9FSY


----------



## jimboalee (16 Nov 2010)

"With intent to cause Actual Bodily Harm". 

Is that still a recognised offence??


----------



## buggi (16 Nov 2010)

Brilliant! Cyclists unite! that looks like a fun commute. wish i had a few more cyclists around on my commute to back me up when twats like this do a close overtake. 

had one the other day overtake me at the bollard after i had already indicated to her to hold back as there wasn't enough room. unfortunately for her i caught her up at the island and told her off in front of her mother who was in the passenger seat 

"did you... DID YOU JUST PASS ME ON A BOLLARD???!!!!" [without letting her answer or getting a word in edgeways whilst wagging my finger] "YOU *DO NOT EVER* OVERTAKE A CYCLIST ON A BOLLARD, DO YOU HEAR ME?!!!! DO YOU HEAR ME????!!!! YOU *NEVER* PUT A CYCLISTS LIFE IN DANGER LIKE THAT AGAIN! 

It was quite funny looking back on it.

Anyway, back to your vid, he was totally wrong, she didn't pull out in front of him, she was already there for quite a while, so he shouldn't have overtaken her. Glad you were there to stick up for her.


----------



## Davidc (16 Nov 2010)

You can't account for every tosser in London. The only thing you can do is report it to the police, who might act once in a decade or so.

More important is to make sure no-one gets injured!


----------



## marinyork (16 Nov 2010)

Instant replay. Not watched any of yours in a while, you are getting posh . You should have your own OB unit going round London.


----------



## Aperitif (16 Nov 2010)

I would put that down to a cyclist taking a chance on an overtake, out of 'lane' and accepting that any passing traffic would be close. Cyclists must share - not dominate, and these 'close things' will happen as a consequence. No point getting uppity about it - move on and concentrate, errant cyclist.
And look at the position of the car in relation to the white lines when passing. Nothing wrong with the car's position there.
Not the most opportune time to be pious Gaz. (In my opinion, that is...I may be toatlly out of order)


----------



## lit (16 Nov 2010)

I'd say just by getting out of the car he has acted aggressively because it is escalating the dispute and it seemed to intimidate her, what's even more scary is he asks you "have I got aggressive?" which would suggest he isn't very self aware of how he is coming across. 

I would report that for sure, sometimes it takes a visit from the police (though I maybe a bit over optimistic that might actually happen in this case) for people to reliase that how they behave can be intimidatory to other road users.


----------



## campbellab (16 Nov 2010)

Too close, but unfortunatly riding on the edge of cycle lane is bound to get that reaction from some drivers as they think as long as they are keeping to their lane that's ok. Cycle lane just promotes the idea that cyclists should be inside it. Good driving elsewhere is generally about sticking to your lane round the roundabout or on the motorway etc. 

I'd consider reporting your rear view of him cutting up the cyclist on purpose if anything. 


You do sound a bit OTT he doesn't shout originally and only raises his voice as between you and her he can't get a word in edgeways... Although you can't really make out from vid if he is trying to work his way past you etc.

'Because what I want to say madam...' 'Stand back! Stand back!'


----------



## Peter10 (16 Nov 2010)

jimboalee said:


> "With intent to cause Actual Bodily Harm".
> 
> Is that still a recognised offence??




CPS would never run with it but the guy is an arse.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Nov 2010)

Poor cycling skills by the woman and bad and aggressive driving by Mr Angry.
A dangerous overtaking manoeuvre by the woman, she did not look to check as she wobbled to overtake the other cyclist. She was outside the white line when there was no need to be on a busy road like that. Bad lack of perception by the cyclist.

That of course does not excuse Mr Angry for his threatening behaviour.


----------



## campbellab (16 Nov 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Poor cycling skills by the woman and bad and aggressive driving by Mr Angry.
> A dangerous overtaking manoeuvre by the woman, she did not look to check as she wobbled to overtake the other cyclist. She was outside the white line when there was no need to be on a busy road like that. Bad lack of perception by the cyclist.
> 
> That of course does not excuse Mr Angry for his threatening behaviour.



IMO she should have been out of the cycle lane clearly showing the room she needed rather than trying to squeezing past the other cyclist. I don't want cars squeezing next to me, and I don't want bikes either!


----------



## clarion (16 Nov 2010)

Thing is, the cycle lane doesn't really have a legal status where it isn't delineated, so the cyclist is actually in the lane the car is in. The blue paint just causes confusion.

Just yesterday, I saw a bus pull in on a woman cyclist. I couldn't believe how stupid he was. The woman decided to speak to the driver, so I stopped as well, just in front of the bus. Good thing I did, because he was so aggressive and sure he was right. He'd indicated, so it was OK to pull into the lane and squish her against the kerb, wasn't it? :-\

I wish I'd had others stop when I've had problems, so I do when I've witnessed something.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Nov 2010)

In London I always figure that any overtake that does not hit me is ok.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Nov 2010)

campbellab said:


> IMO she should have been out of the cycle lane clearly showing the room she needed rather than trying to squeezing past the other cyclist. I don't want cars squeezing next to me, and I don't want bikes either!



yes I agree with that. 
She should have looked then clearly signalled. She did not and took a risky chance.

I friggin' hate bike lanes.


----------



## magnatom (16 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> I would put that down to a cyclist taking a chance on an overtake, out of 'lane' and accepting that any passing traffic would be close. Cyclists must share - not dominate, and these 'close things' will happen as a consequence. No point getting uppity about it - move on and concentrate, errant cyclist.
> And look at the position of the car in relation to the white lines when passing. Nothing wrong with the car's position there.
> Not the most opportune time to be pious Gaz. (In my opinion, that is...I may be toatlly out of order)



It is up to the following driver who is considering an overtake to ensure that it is safe to do so. However, I will admit her lack of rear observation didn't help, and she should have taken more of the lane if overtaking.

However, the driving after the initial incident concerns me more. Look how close he is to the cyclist (in the rear view video). He forces the cyclist over towards the edge. There certainly looks like intent there. Using his vehicle as a weapon, I would suggest.


----------



## gaz (16 Nov 2010)

campbellab said:


> Because what I want to say madam...' 'Stand back! Stand back!'



He was trying to make his way past me and towards the woman, i wasn't letting that happen!
Unfortunately words will hardly ever make people learn at the road side, i was more concerned getting away from this without anyone harmed, and that meant making sure he knew what would happen if he did something and making sure he was reminded of that.


----------



## Tynan (16 Nov 2010)

so crossed into another lane without signalling or checking to see if it another vehicle was going to be there at the same time

I think we'd all know what to say if a car did that


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Nov 2010)

Tynan said:


> so crossed into another lane without signalling or checking to see if it another vehicle was going to be there at the same time
> 
> I think we'd all know what to say if a car did that



Now now, we all know cyclists are always right.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Nov 2010)

Tynan said:


> so crossed into another lane without signalling or checking to see if it another vehicle was going to be there at the same time
> 
> I think we'd all know what to say if a car did that



Indeed.....


----------



## magnatom (16 Nov 2010)

Tynan said:


> so crossed into another lane without signalling or checking to see if it another vehicle was going to be there at the same time
> 
> I think we'd all know what to say if a car did that



Has anyone said she didn't do wrong? Do you disagree that the overtaker, both her and the car driver have a duty of care for those who they are overtaking? What poses the greater risk, a cyclist overtaking too close, or a car ? What do you think of the drivers driving following the initial incident?


----------



## marinyork (16 Nov 2010)

Tynan said:


> so crossed into another lane without signalling or checking to see if it another vehicle was going to be there at the same time
> 
> I think we'd all know what to say if a car did that



If you bother to watch the footage you'll actually find the cyclist is in the cycle lane for a great deal if not all of the overtake so normal rules apply and it is therefore completely the fault of the motorist. It is unimportant whether the cyclist chooses to be to the far left or far right of the lane. Moreover it was just after a set of lights at low speed and the cyclist had priority and a motorised bike was passing on the right. Like with so many arguments on cycle lanes whether it is a good idea or not is completely different from who is in the wrong. 

You could make the argument that cyclist didn't give the other cyclist enough room though, that's a completely legitimate argument.


----------



## barongreenback (17 Nov 2010)

Does knocking on a window do anything to change the attitude of the driver or does it just serve to make yourself feel better? I can't honestly imagine many drivers being pleased to have the error of their ways being pointed out, nor would I imagine a polite word in their ear would make the blindest bit of difference to their future behaviour. Why put yourself at risk?


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Nov 2010)

The rear view one is by far the worst, clearly a deliberate attempt to intimidate or worse still knock her off.


----------



## Mark_Robson (17 Nov 2010)

marinyork said:


> If you bother to watch the footage you'll actually find the cyclist is in the cycle lane for a great deal if not all of the overtake so normal rules apply and it is therefore completely the fault of the motorist.


The way that I interpreted the situation is that she put herself into a tight position by over taking the other cyclist. The cars position was fine and TBH I don't think that she was justified in her attitude towards the driver. If a driver operated his vehicle with the same aggression that she operates her bike then I think that we would be asking for his licence.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Nov 2010)

marinyork said:


> If you bother to watch the footage *you'll actually find the cyclist is in the cycle lane for a great deal if not all of the overtake* so normal rules apply and it is therefore completely the fault of the motorist. It is unimportant whether the cyclist chooses to be to the far left or far right of the lane. Moreover it was just after a set of lights at low speed and the cyclist had priority and a motorised bike was passing on the right. Like with so many arguments on cycle lanes whether it is a good idea or not is completely different from who is in the wrong.
> 
> You could make the argument that cyclist didn't give the other cyclist enough room though, that's a completely legitimate argument.





Other viewers may notice that 'the cyclist' comes arrowing into the lane from somewhere to Gaz's right and shows no consideration for the group mentality that should have kicked in, instead of 'I'm overtaking, I'm not signalling and I'm not looking around' attitude that the cyclist displays. An act of potential aggression it could be said...

The proof of the pudding I suppose will be when you definitely see some 'bad cycling' and rush to protect a motorist from an unreasonable cyclist, in similar circumstances. Oh well.


----------



## beanzontoast (17 Nov 2010)

Another very good quality and thought-provoking video, Gaz. Certainly makes you reflect on these situations which are usually over too quickly to analyse - and hopefully (speaking for myself) learn something for the future.

IMHO - the cyclist and the motorist could both have been more careful in the initial overtake. You could argue until the cows come home about relative fault. What's more important is that this illustrates how potential confrontations can arise through human error.


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Nov 2010)

What you forget when being critical of the tap on the window is the rush a close pass gives, regardless of who is at fault (IMO this was 50/50) I am glad after the events on my commute that 99.9% of the time I am never in a postion where I can or do catch up with the culprit.


----------



## fossyant (17 Nov 2010)

Point to note:- is it me or were the female cyclists lights crap - I could just pick out a light on her helmet.

Driver is a nut case............


----------



## Jezston (17 Nov 2010)

Is there rear footage of the first incident?

Not sure what the people being arsey on this thread are getting at, but it looks like the close passed rider was well into their maneuver and was travelling straight before they passed Gaz. 

No idea why people are saying "oh they didn't look and pulled out" when there is no footage of them pulling out.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

The cyclist's overtake wasn't very good, and she gave the rider she overtook as much space as the car gave her. IMO that leaves her complaint to the driver a little hypocritical at best. She could have cycled much better, but still, that's not really what this video is about.

OTOH the driver's overtake was far worse, because he was behind her at the start and she had owned the lane when crossing the stop line. The driver pushed on when he really shouldn't have, and coupled with his aggression and his later close pass of the male cyclist leaves me feeling most concerned about his mad driving and poor attitude in the video.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

LOCO said:


> The rear view one is by far the worst, clearly a deliberate attempt to intimidate or worse still knock her off.



That's another cyclist, the male in the white/translucent top. I also didn't see any attempt to knock off, just another "I must squeeze past".


----------



## iAmiAdam (17 Nov 2010)

She was never in the far left of the cycle lane, even if the cyclist is in the cycle lane I'm sure you're meant to give them some room? Which could of easily been done as there was no traffic to the right of the car, he could of given her atleast a foot.

But that's not the point, even if you don't agree with what someone thinks, there's no need to get out of your car etc.

Well played Gaz, good to know there's still some good people out there.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Nov 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Poor cycling skills by the woman and bad and aggressive driving by Mr Angry.
> A dangerous overtaking manoeuvre by the woman, she did not look to check as she wobbled to overtake the other cyclist. *She was outside the white line when there was no need to be on a busy road like that*. Bad lack of perception by the cyclist.
> 
> That of course does not excuse Mr Angry for his threatening behaviour.




A perfect illustration of the negative aspect of cycle lanes being used to impart culpability onto the cyclist for "being in the bit that's for cars, not for bikes"

Yes, mistakes seem to have been made on both sides, but the mistake is not one of purely "not being in the bike lane"


On the subject of aggression by car drivers, I find these steering locks highly offensive...nigh on useless as a steering wheel lock so only really with one purpose in mind, disguising the offensive weapon as something "legitimate"

*http://tinyurl.com/3647uhq*


----------



## Ticktockmy (17 Nov 2010)

The other evening I was cycling through the village of Handcross here in Sussex, mid evening so the traffic was not very heavy, but with the cars parked each side of the road it do make the road a little narrow.

Behind me I can hear a car revving its engine and really trying to either push me to go faster or move over for which there was no room.

Each end of the high street there are pinch kerbs which really reduce the width if the road so only one car can pass.

As I approached the pinch area there was another car was coming the other way, and he stopped to allow myself and the fool behind me pass.

Fool behind me seeing thier chance pulled out and floored the gas pedal, only to find they F&%*%ed up, and drove over the pinch kerb, swerved to miss and nearly flattened me,.

They then proceeded to drive off, well limped off making very expensive noises.

The guy in the other car was shocked as he was thinking the idiot was going to ram him, luckly he got the number and was going to report it.

Turns out dare I say it” the Driver was a Lady” going home to explain why the car needed major surgery.

Hopefully she learnt a lesson.


----------



## Amanda P (17 Nov 2010)

In my opinion, the lady cyclist's overtake was a little ill-judged; the driver's was worse. We all make mistakes.

I fully understand Gaz's actions once the driver had stopped, and I agree that getting out the car _could _have been an act of aggression.

But equally, he may have been getting out of the car in order not to have to shout at her to get across his point of view - which would have also seemed aggressive. (It's hard to make yourself heard from inside a car, even with the window open, in a noisy environment like a traffic junction). In the event, he had no chance to say anything much because Gaz never gave him a chance. In the end, I think he did get frustrated, and at that point relapsed into the "go **** yourself" argument, and got back into his car.

The manouvre he then made caught on Gaz's rear view camera looked particularly stupid. I wonder if that action was deliberate, and came partly of frustration from the encounter with Gaz? - or frustration that he wasn't able to bully the woman cyclist as he'd have liked to, for the capital crime of _touching his car_! 

For this manouvre, there can be no excuse. He can hardly have been unaware at this point that there were bikes about.


----------



## Amanda P (17 Nov 2010)

Oh, and I wholly agree that this illustrates nicely why there shouldn't be bike lanes of this type. In fact, since there seem to be as many bikes as cars about on this route, perhaps the cars should be confined to one narrow lane, and the rest of the road designated for bikes?


----------



## scouserinlondon (17 Nov 2010)

I've never had anybody get out of a car on me, but I would take it as an act of aggression and either shoot my self and leg it or take them on.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> I would put that down to a cyclist taking a chance on an overtake, out of 'lane' and accepting that any passing traffic would be close... And look at the position of the car in relation to the white lines when passing. Nothing wrong with the car's position there.



Am I reading this right? Your assessment seems to be that - well, being as she was outside the cycle lane, she has to accept a close pass. 

Are you sure?

Now, the cyclist does not give the cyclist on her inside anywhere near enough room. That's not good cycling.

But arguing that because the car is in a good position "in relation to the white lines" (!!), the overtake was alright, is frankly absurd. 

The driver should be in a good position with respect to the* human being on the bicycle* - regardless of how poor her overtake on the other cyclist is (in fact I would say that's a reason for being even _more _cautious, to compensate). 

(To anticipate a comeback argument - I don't think the driver can argue that she suddenly swerved into his lane to overtake. She appears in the vid at 0:18, pretty much on the white line. The car overtakes her six seconds later, and in that time her line has barely deviated - maybe a few more inches to her right. As stated previously, her positioning is poor, as is the overtake - but she is in the driver's vision for plenty of time, and her line does not deviate substantially enough to justify the proximity of the pass).


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> The cars position was fine.



It was not.

See my post above.


----------



## oldroadman (17 Nov 2010)

1. If you need to do an overtake, dominate the road space. They can't squeeze if there is no room to get alongside. From the vidoe, the skills in this area were poor.
2. Lights, it was a poorly lit area, and the "offended" rider had poor lighting, took no rear observation before moving out.
3. The whole confrontation was unnecessary, and simply provoked the driver into a worse mood, which is reflected in the cutting in incident (not excusing this), which brought danger to someone else!.
4. Lesson, take a note from advanced moto riding system, use a "lifesaver" glance before that final move, and when the traffic is as tight as this be aware what's going on around you. It's not all one way agression, as sadly we sometimes see in London (and elsewhere), but the people who get hurt are on tow wheels, where it's just body damage to a car/bus/truck.


----------



## Lurker (17 Nov 2010)

".... What's more important is that this illustrates how potential confrontations can arise through human error."



Surely the individuals concerned aren't acting in a vacuum? The street layout was designed by highway engineers, and they help to shape people's behaviour. So I'd suggest that the people who created this part of the cycle superhighway bear some responsibility for conflicts such as this.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Nov 2010)

I'm with Uncle Phil and oldroadman on this - and, presuming this is Clapham Road and I haven't made some embarrassing error, I know this stretch of road very well. She should have looked first, signalled and been well further to the right, given the other cyclist more room, and not given the driver the option of overtaking. When I go down there on my way back south at this time of night I'm well in to the not-so-blue bit _for the entire stretch_, and making sure that absolutely nothing other than The Blur Known As Origamist (grrrrr...) gets past me in that lane - that way I can assure myself that Susie, who will be a little further to the left, isn't menaced.

As for the contretemps - forget it. He's one of tens of thousands who are gradually accustoming themselves to the huge number of cyclists on the A24. It's getting better day by day.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm with Uncle Phil and oldroadman on this - and, presuming this is Clapham Road and I haven't made some embarrassing error, I know this stretch of road very well. She should have looked first, signalled and been well further to the right, given the other cyclist more room, and not given the driver the option of overtaking. When I go down there on my way back south at this time of night I'm well in to the not-so-blue bit _for the entire stretch_, and making sure that absolutely nothing other than The Blur Known As Origamist (grrrrr...) gets past me in that lane - that way I can assure myself that Susie, who will be a little further to the left, isn't menaced.
> 
> As for the contretemps - forget it. He's one of tens of thousands who are gradually accustoming themselves to the huge number of cyclists on the A24. It's getting better day by day.



This is all true, but it still doesn't excuse the much worse overtake from the driver, or the aggressive approach that was stopped in its tracks by Gaz. That must have been quite frightening for the lady cyclist.

Gaz gets my vote for super cyclist: his commanding presence, leadership, and gentlemanly behaviour on the day. Chapeau!!!


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

p.s. Aperitif, should I say a word about chancy overtakes and not looking back?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

> She should have looked first, signalled and been well further to the right, given the other cyclist more room, and not given the driver the option of overtaking.


 
This is all true, but sailing dangerously close to blaming the victim - especially as there is no mention of the driver's behaviour in your post.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Nov 2010)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Am I reading this right? Your assessment seems to be that - well, being as she was outside the cycle lane, she has to accept a close pass.
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> ...



Yes - I'm sure. If you are going to overtake, (or 'barely deviate'  ) white line or not, then at least 'glance' so you're satisfied. (I'm not talking about avoiding action like swerving around a pothole or something like that - that's a reaction call - not pre-meditated...) Knowing the road - as people on regular commutes do, counts for a lot - it doesn't expand and contract for car drivers simply because a cyclist decides to pull out. Both sides should expect reasonable and well-indicated behaviour - that's commuting!
You talk about human being on a bicycle. There are also human beings in cars. Of course, the cyclist is vunerable, but that's what we acknowledge as cyclists, or should do - and behave accordingly.
Last night, while stopped at lights, I had a casual word with a cyclist on Finchley Road - one of London's race tracks...suggested that she might like to get a rear light as it was difficult to 'pick her up' on approach.
She lifted up her overcoat and there it was - flashing for its life to an audience of none.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Yes - I'm sure. If you are going to overtake, (or 'barely deviate'  ) white line or not, then at least 'glance' so you're satisfied. (I'm not talking about avoiding action like swerving around a pothole or something like that - that's a reaction call - not pre-meditated...) Knowing the road - as people on regular commutes do, counts for a lot - it doesn't expand and contract for car drivers simply because a cyclist decides to pull out. Both sides should expect reasonable and well-indicated behaviour - that's commuting!



Your original comment stated that there was "nothing wrong with the car's position."

I see nothing here to justify that claim. 

You continue talking about the cyclist's behaviour here (which - to stress again, I agree was substandard) as if that automatically justifies where the driver positioned his car.

It does not.

Think this through.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Nov 2010)

This is what I see. And as much as I can think - that's what I still see.
Also, what might have gone on before to up the ante? Who knows?


----------



## scouserinlondon (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> This is what I see. And as much as I can think - that's what I still see.
> Also, what might have gone on before to up the ante? Who knows?



Like others have said, I would consider this a mistake and hope that in a similar situation to make I would have taken primary in the lane to overtake, even though that action too could easily piss off a motorist. 

It's a bloody easy mistake ot make and one I've done more times than I'd like to admit.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> p.s. Aperitif, should I say a word about chancy overtakes and not looking back?


----------



## gaz (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> This is what I see. And as much as I can think - that's what I still see.
> Also, what might have gone on before to up the ante? Who knows?



From that image what do you see?
A cyclist being passed too closely by a car.
As magnatom said earlier. It's up to the overtaker to make sure it is safe to overtake (you could say the same aboutthe cyclist vs cyclist overtake). What ever mistake the cyclist made when she overtook doesn't make his overtake fine.

And to the point as to what happened earlier, I can safely say that this was the first thing that had happened between the two.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> This is what I see. And as much as I can think - that's what I still see.



Yes, you're watching the same video as me. Good.

Do you still think there was nothing wrong with the car's position?


----------



## Riding in Circles (17 Nov 2010)

She isn't doing a lot to make herself visible at night is she?


----------



## Aperitif (17 Nov 2010)

Yes quite. Which is why I mentioned about pothole avoidance etc, Mikey. But yes - I'm as bad as anyone else at times, which is why I ride with a little 'give and take' in order to wend one's way...and would never consider any aspect of my cycling as 'good' - just appropriate, at best.
Now enjoyment of cycling, and company - the word 'good' just will not stop tumbling out...


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1245967"]
The cyclist is in the wrong position. So is the car.
[/quote]

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

Some people are having a bit of trouble with latter part though.


----------



## Bollo (17 Nov 2010)

FWIW, I think the cyclist takes the brunt of the blame for the initial pass, with extenuating circumstances for the general carpness of the facilities and the belief by many motorists that cyclelanes define 'sufficient room'. Matey in the car _could _have anticipated the cyclist's manoeuvre or_ could _have slammed the anchors on as the lady edged out, but to place that much trust in someone else in that kind of environment invites trouble. Everything that follows could have been avoided and in the circumstances I think gaz did the right thing. The final 'punishment pass' is a horror and IMO, deliberate. 

Climbing on my high horse for a second, I think this little scene illustrates why I'm slightly uncomfortable with the shape of London's cycling revolution. There are plenty of people on bikes, but it often appears a bit competitive, self-regarding and f***-you. I can see where it's come from and it some ways it reflects the wider characteristics of London life, but ultimately it's not what will turn London into a genuine cycling city. I agree with 'teef that it's all got to calm down, lighten up and take a little more care of itself.

(Climbs off horse. Gives horse sugar-lump and goes to look up 'pompous' in the dictionary)


----------



## 400bhp (17 Nov 2010)

magnatom said:


> It is up to the following driver who is considering an overtake to ensure that it is safe to do so.



That's the important point here.

Incident wouldn't have happened if he had hung back.

A very sensible move Gaz


----------



## jonny jeez (17 Nov 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Poor cycling skills by the woman and bad and aggressive driving by Mr Angry.
> A dangerous overtaking manoeuvre by the woman, she did not look to check as she wobbled to overtake the other cyclist. She was outside the white line when there was no need to be on a busy road like that. Bad lack of perception by the cyclist.
> 
> That of course does not excuse Mr Angry for his threatening behaviour.



+1.

Question 1...is getting out of a car an act of aggression..yes.

Question 2 is tapping on a window an equal act of aggression...yes. (I should know, I've dont both) 

Poor riding skills on her behalf poor driving on his. both equally aggressive towards each other.

Great video though, I really like the way you dealt with this guy, very polite, pointing out the camera. This stopped him in his tracks and just diffused his agner, even to the point that he called the rider "madam". Shame it escalated. perhaps if someone had pointed out the riders failings as well as his own, he may have agreed that he they were both in the wrong and moved on.


----------



## nightoff (17 Nov 2010)

As most have said, it six of one and half a dozen the other. 

The cyclist was a little eratic and poorly illuminated. 

The driver either never anticipated the cyclist's overtake or noticed her drifting into his path or he did notice but couldn't be bothered to take any action. The driver certainly made no effort to slow down or alter course. Likewise, the cyclist never glanced over her shoulder to check that there was no faster moving traffic bearing down on her. She never signalled her intension to overtake, only assumed there was enough room.

If I had made that manoeuvre, I would have accepted the close pass and put it down to experience. I think tapping the drivers window made him focus on her mistake and aggresively defend his driving.

Gaz's intervention did a number of things. It diffused the confrontation between the driver and female cyclist, but also made it difficult for the driver to air his point of view. You could see the driver becoming so frustrated as his opportunity to retort was diminished. In fact he was almost struck by a passing car mirror as he stormed back into his car.

This in turn probably escalated the anger of the driver resulting in the far worse display of driving afterwards.

It was bad form of the driver to leave his vehicle which was definitely an aggresive act so plaudits to Gaz for protecting the female cyclist. Had he not been there I would expect the driver to have launched a tirade of abuse at the woman.

The problem here lies in the woman pointing the finger of blame when she also contributed to the close pass with her eratic riding. 

The main lesson I will take from this is to try and remember to check behind before altering my line for my own safety as I would ultimately come off second best in a collision with a car.


----------



## gaz (17 Nov 2010)

nightoff said:


> The problem here lies in the woman pointing the finger of blame when she also contributed to the close pass with her eratic riding.



Best comment so far.

AS you mentioned earlier in your post. I would have taken that close pass on the chin and learnt that i should take a more deffesnsive position when overtake. As i do on this stretch of road, where overtaking requires you to look, judge the speeds, indicate, move out, pass safely and quickly and move back in. Thanking any driver behind you for being patient helps.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

I must say that that lady cyclist's close overtake, no looking, squeezing out into the car lane, and hoping it'll somehow fit does rather annoy me. I know that sort of cycling annoys lots of other drivers too.

My horror though, is reserved for that dangerous pass by the driver, his aggression outside the car to a lesser degree, and then the consistently bad pass of the second cyclist. I rather feel that driver doesn't deserve to keep his licence by the way he risked both those cyclists lives, because he had plenty of time in both cases to avoid such a close pass.


----------



## marinyork (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Other viewers may notice that 'the cyclist' comes arrowing into the lane from somewhere to Gaz's right and shows no consideration for the group mentality that should have kicked in, instead of 'I'm overtaking, I'm not signalling and I'm not looking around' attitude that the cyclist displays. An act of potential aggression it could be said...
> 
> The proof of the pudding I suppose will be when you definitely see some 'bad cycling' and rush to protect a motorist from an unreasonable cyclist, in similar circumstances. Oh well.



It's not that teef, I'm just reading the rules how they are, I don't make them up or put that cycle lane in. I know that often leads to unpopular views in commuting because people like to go on about how crap cycle lanes are and how bad cyclists are in London. There are a lot of things that I'd 'really rather you didn't' but I have no control over them.

Riding right at the far edge of the cycle lane (on the line) like that cyclist was doing might well be regarded as aggressive riding (more so from the cycling perspective as they were overtaking another cyclist) but that's immaterial really. Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter entirely.


----------



## benb (17 Nov 2010)

Bollo said:


> FWIW, I think the cyclist takes the brunt of the blame for the initial pass, with extenuating circumstances for the general *carpness *of the facilities and the belief by many motorists that cyclelanes define 'sufficient room'.



Yes, there was something fishy about all that.


----------



## Jezston (17 Nov 2010)

benb said:


> Yes, there was something fishy about all that.



Let's not turn this in to a pun thread, please.

Don't take the bait, people!


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

Yes, no need to wade in.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Nov 2010)

marinyork said:


> It's not that teef, I'm just reading the rules how they are, I don't make them up or put that cycle lane in. I know that often leads to unpopular views in commuting because people like to go on about how crap cycle lanes are and how bad cyclists are in London. There are a lot of things that I'd 'really rather you didn't' but I have no control over them.
> 
> Riding right at the far edge of the cycle lane (on the line) like that cyclist was doing might well be regarded as aggressive riding (more so from the cycling perspective as they were overtaking another cyclist) but that's immaterial really. Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter entirely.



Hi Marin, I wouldn't be doing anything but riding on the 'edge', or toward the outside of that 'lane' - perhaps slightly outside it if I thought it was too constricting (as some are.) I always prefer to leave an escape route , inward - in case the scenario we're discussing occurs, regardless of blame etc... If the rider that I am inclined to overtake decides to shift position, I am immediately riding wider. Then I'm mixing it with wider faster vehicles and will reap the consequences - some folk think they own the road. 
I make no comment about cycle lanes, apart from I wish they were plain tarmac and defined by a solid line - nothing else.


----------



## addictfreak (17 Nov 2010)

Well just looked at this video clip. 

First off IMHO its a poor manouvre by the overtaking cyclist, who didnt appear to look over her shoulder at all, putting herself in danger. The car driver could certainly have slowed down so as not to squeeze past.

I dont think the act of getting out of your car is necessarily an act of aggression. I also think the fact that Gaz was straight in the guys face didnt help either, and may have inflamed the situation a little. His (driver) main altercation seemed to be with Gaz.

What followed was very aggressive and dangerous driving, maybe if things had been a little calmer earlier that could have been avoided.


----------



## decca234uk (17 Nov 2010)

I'd agree that it was poor overtaking by the woman. She didn't look stable or confident to me. The overtaking was too close. The guy when he originally got out of the car seemed quiet reasonable, it would have been interesting to hear what he was about to say before being told he was on video. He did lose it at the end. Good use of head cam though. I think these are a good idea for cyclists, keep thinking of getting one myself.


----------



## addictfreak (17 Nov 2010)

I have viewed it again, my original comments stand and I would add that she isnt exactly well lit up! One small red LED high up on her back pack, so when she bends forward it will be hard to see. No high viz and no rear lights on here bike.


----------



## ComedyPilot (17 Nov 2010)

All totally avoidable. 

As other's have pointed out, the woman's riding left a lot to be desired, the blokes driving likewise (although potentially more grave consequences). The woman tapping on the window got the bloke's back up, and Gaz doing the shining armoured-knight bit pissed him off, as his intent and venom couldn't be vented at his target. 6 of one and half a dozen there.

The second overtake after the verbal handbags was (IMO) malicious, and worthy of a word in his shell by the Met.


----------



## marinyork (17 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Hi Marin, I wouldn't be doing anything but riding on the 'edge', or toward the outside of that 'lane' - perhaps slightly outside it if I thought it was too constricting (as some are.) I always prefer to leave an escape route , inward - in case the scenario we're discussing occurs, regardless of blame etc... If the rider that I am inclined to overtake decides to shift position, I am immediately riding wider. Then I'm mixing it with wider faster vehicles and will reap the consequences - some folk think they own the road.
> I make no comment about cycle lanes, apart from I wish they were plain tarmac and defined by a solid line - nothing else.



If the cyclist had knocked off the other cyclist that would be totally their fault and not a great idea. As a lot of these things go it's not really a great idea but people get away with narrow margins. I don't really come across this problem as I'm unlikely to want to overtake some other cyclist on the flat and some people actually think I look behind too often. Nearest I come to this is I ride on the edge of a bus lane because of the dooring and pulling out zone and it doesn't half wind some drivers up. I actually had a cyclist stuck behind me a week back and then I lost him on the incline and we had a chat at the top of the hill.

Cyclists share the road with car drivers, although there's the lane cyclists have as much of a right to overtake a cyclist as a car driver does. I don't necessarily think that on a junction or just after a junction is necessarily the worse place in the world to do it. For exactly the same reasons it isn't the best place in the world to be doing it either.


----------



## John Ponting (17 Nov 2010)

*Is a driver getting out of their car an act of potential aggression?*

Not if they intend to appologise and/or help in some way. Any more than deliberately damaging paintwork or mirrors is anything other than antagonistic. Deliberately causing damage can be prosecuted; getting out of a car cannot.

But i haven't bothered to look at the video and I wasn't there at the time.


----------



## lit (17 Nov 2010)

> Question 1...is getting out of a car an act of aggression..yes.
> 
> Question 2 is tapping on a window an equal act of aggression...yes. (I should know, I've dont both)



I wouldn't neccessarily saying tapping on a window is aggressive - I drive and cycle and if a cyclist thought I had done something wrong in overtaking them I genuinely wouldn't mind them tapping on my window to talk about it, as long as he/she wasn't being abusive etc.

I done this to a driver myself when traffic that I was filtering (on the outside) started moving bit quicker than I expected and I wasn't sure whether to move over left or if she was going to drive through, anyway she went ahead in the end, I tapped on the window, she wound it down, we had a amicable peaceful chat about it, we were both different in opinions, exchanged our views and left it at that.

I've also tapped on a van driver's window (when I was cycling) to let him know he was driving with his hazards on, he first appeared aggressive but when I told him why I'd tapped on the window, he said thanks with a thumbs up and we carried on our journeys.


----------



## downfader (17 Nov 2010)

Have only just skim read most of this so apologies if its been cleared up...

Is that the only light she had..? The one on her backpack pointing to the stars? Not ideal if it is, though I accept it could be that her rear light is "drowned out" by the street and other lights..?  

The first overtake wasnt anything like the defensive driving he needs in a city like London imvho.. If he drove like that here I can assume that he'll hit another vehicle or street furniture sooner or later. His second pass was imo deliberate and intimidatory, as I said on the youtube comments he prolly assumed he'd got away with it not realising the rear facing cam.

In my experience I find cyclelanes like that impede safer overtaking of fellow cyclists as drivers will come far too close to begin with. On an unmarked regular road drivers often slow down behind you to see what you're up to so you can whiz past other cyclists much easier and safer. Drivers expect you to remain in the confines of the cyclelane and not exit it for any reason.... 

The CSH scheme could have seriously been improved if they closed off one or two of the CSHs to all non-motorised except buses, taxies, residents and delivery vehicles. Such a radical approach would never be done in the UK though, even if it does stop the jossling and the other problems we all face. I dont think drivers need the shortcuts and the rat runs in reality - as the vehicle is doing the work for them. 

EDIT:just remembered something. I knew a scaffolder on our site who had a guy get out of his car like this at him (something to do with the numpty overtaking him forcing him and the scaffold truck into a ditch and hammer his horn). So this bloke has hammered on the brakes and got out shouting at the scaffolder lad. He said "I thought the guy was gonna hit me so I went first" Knocked the guy spark out and phoned the Police. 

Apparently this numpty had done it to others and had a history of aggression. Scaffolder got let off the punch as it was self defence but had to go to court as a witness. Dont know what happened to the numpty.


----------



## marinyork (17 Nov 2010)

John Ponting said:


> *Is a driver getting out of their car an act of potential aggression?*
> 
> Not if they intend to appologise and/or help in some way. Any more than deliberately damaging paintwork or mirrors is anything other than antagonistic. Deliberately causing damage can be prosecuted; getting out of a car cannot.
> 
> But i haven't bothered to look at the video and I wasn't there at the time.



Unfortunately getting out of the car has to be viewed as a hostile act in many circumstances. I know not all drivers intend it as that. It's meant to demonstrate dominance and the ability to easily pounce on your victim. I've had jolly old little men waiting for me at the top of the hill out of their car and although they were totally pleasant although misguided you still have to be careful.

I know you haven't watched the video and I take on board what comedy pilot says but you can see a mile off what this guy's intentions were. Unfortunately recently we were discussing benborp being assaulted. His tactics to distract 'am I being aggressive?' was meant to show seeds of doubt so Gaz let off his guard while he either lamped him or pushed passed him and then preceeded on to his victim. The after bit is just malicious. 3 bits of bad behaviour.


----------



## boydj (17 Nov 2010)

Yes to the original question. It's unlikely any driver would get out of his car to proffer friendly greetings.

The lady may well not have been that well lit, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. She was in the overtake position and holding a fairly steady line well before the car driver started his overtake. He did not move over at all to make account of her presence on or just over the line. You could say her overtake could have been better and her roadcraft leaves a bit to be desired, but it does not excuse the driver. His subsequent chop of the cyclist as he comes inside the line of queuing cars just highlights his lack of consideration for the cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2010)

Gaz, what was your impression of her lights?

I don't think the rest of us can comment, because cameras don't have the dynamic range of the human eye and thus often leave lights looking quite dim, more than in reality.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (17 Nov 2010)

First, thanks for protecting the (female) cyclist from the driver!
I've looked at the vid and my view is OK, she passed the other cyclist close but she was out wide from the lights anyway (although moved in for the motorbike to come past?). 

The motorist was into the ASL at the junction as well.

[Didn't have the sound on though]

Onus is on the driver IMO here to not pass if it's not safe. He could have slowed down and/or braked a bit to allow her overtake, but chose not to.


----------



## fimm (17 Nov 2010)

I'm not going to add to the discussion of the cycling and driving as I think anything I might add has already been said. However having now seen the video, I have to add that I did feel some sympathy for the driver in the sense that he ended up with 3 cyclists all having a go at him and as someone else has said, didn't really have the opportunity to put his point of view. That *does not* excuse his very bad driving at the end, though.


----------



## Headgardener (17 Nov 2010)

HG's take on this. Yes the lady cyclist and the driver made errors in thier overtaking manoevers but the driver compounded his by then getting out of his vehicle in an aggresive manner with possible intent to do harm to the female cyclist which was prevented by gaz and then attempting to off a totaly innocent cyclist afterwards.


----------



## Bollo (17 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Gaz, what was your impression of her lights?
> 
> I don't think the rest of us can comment, because cameras don't have the dynamic range of the human eye and thus often leave lights looking quite dim, more than in reality.


Same occurred to me as well, Mikey. Most cams do some sort of equalisation as well that buggers about with the image contrast, so I agree it'd be difficult to call her lights from the video. Having said that, I've seen some shockers since the clocks went back - lights in name only.


----------



## buggi (17 Nov 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> The way that I interpreted the situation is that she put herself into a tight position by over taking the other cyclist. The cars position was fine and TBH I don't think that she was justified in her attitude towards the driver. If a driver operated his vehicle with the same aggression that she operates her bike then I think that we would be asking for his licence.



don't agree. 



Aperitif said:


> Other viewers may notice that 'the cyclist' comes arrowing into the lane from somewhere to Gaz's right and shows no consideration for the group mentality that should have kicked in, instead of 'I'm overtaking, I'm not signalling and I'm not looking around' attitude that the cyclist displays. An act of potential aggression it could be said...
> 
> The proof of the pudding I suppose will be when you definitely see some 'bad cycling' and rush to protect a motorist from an unreasonable cyclist, in similar circumstances. Oh well.



don't agree with this either. 



Jezston said:


> Is there rear footage of the first incident?
> 
> Not sure what the people being arsey on this thread are getting at, but it looks like the close passed rider was well into their maneuver and was travelling straight before they passed Gaz.
> 
> No idea why people are saying "oh they didn't look and pulled out" when there is no footage of them pulling out.



agree. 
After watching it a few times it's plain to see she did not come from "somewhere" to Gaz's right, she was sitting next to him in the ASL when the lights were on red. As the traffic moves off she stays on the edge of the cycle lane intending to overtake the other cyclist, and barely deviates to overtake the cyclist. The driver was intent on passing whether she had deviated those few inches or not, and had she not deviated he still would have been too close. He knew she was there, she was sitting in front of him at the lights and she kept to her line. It's obvious she was going to overtake the cyclist and he was impatient and couldn't be bothered to wait. Had he not seen the other cyclist, and just thought she was riding that line, he was still wrong to pass so close. Doesn't even matter about her dim lights, she had been sitting in front of him in the ASL and he knew it. 

Whether she passes the cyclist too close is completely irrelevant. 

Just because there is a cycle lane there does not mean we aren't entitled to our 3 foot of clearance. cycle lane or not, cars should be pulling out to give room, not passing close. i have always been taught to ride the line anyway, to force cars to pull out and also to give me room to pull in if they make an error. 

Edit: cutting up the other cyclist in your rear view is nothing less than dangerous driving and should be reported. but i think this can be a lesson to us all that if you row with a driver, you only serve to heighten their hatred towards us, even if for only a few minutes, which might result in someone being seriously hurt/dying through their angry recklessness rather than to improve their driving skills.


----------



## Norm (17 Nov 2010)

Bollo said:


> Climbing on my high horse for a second, I think this little scene illustrates why I'm slightly uncomfortable with the shape of London's cycling revolution. There are plenty of people on bikes, but it often appears a bit competitive, self-regarding and f***-you. I can see where it's come from and it some ways it reflects the wider characteristics of London life, but ultimately it's not what will turn London into a genuine cycling city. I agree with 'teef that it's all got to calm down, lighten up and take a little more care of itself.
> (Climbs off horse. Gives horse sugar-lump and goes to look up 'pompous' in the dictionary)


Whilst you are up there, Bollo, I'll take this one a step further.

I know many here hold up Copenhagen as an ideal of bikes being taken as part of the road-scape but it cuts both ways. If a car had acted as the female cyclist acted, there would be (IMO) universal condemnation. 

Whilst we have cyclists who act as if they don't need to comply with the laws and the accepted practices on the road, we will get people who react like the dicksplash of a driver.

If we want to achieve the shared-space idyll of Copenhagen-on-Thames, we need to change the way we are as cyclists as much as we want drivers to change.

Got any spare lumps of sugar, Bollo, my donkey could do with a nibble too.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Nov 2010)

cyclist comes into view at 18s -at this point she was outside the cycle lane

at 19s she was just inside the line

car passes at 24 s where she was just outside the line.

Piss poor observation by the car driver.


----------



## gaz (18 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Gaz, what was your impression of her lights?
> 
> I don't think the rest of us can comment, because cameras don't have the dynamic range of the human eye and thus often leave lights looking quite dim, more than in reality.



As you rightly say, the camera doesn't give a true representation of her lights.

Her lights need improving, for sure, she needs at least one more red one and it should be on the bike. Was the light she had dim? no, it was a good light, the only problem she has is when she bends over, the light is shining in the sky.

Did it play a part in this?
i wouldn't say so, her reflective panels are being lit up by my flasher. and the street lights at this part are adequate enough that even though she is wearing darkish clothes, you can still see her.


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Nov 2010)

I think the biggest issue is that she out sprinted Gaz away from the lights!


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Nov 2010)

BM (going back a bit) - I take your point entirely. Big up the Gazzster!

If I'm right about the location then the condition or strength of her lights is neither here nor there. The streetlighting, combined with the amount of reflected light from cars means that there is no visibility problem at all - you can see any stealth cyclist (and there are plenty of them) if they are within 40 metres or so.

But my reservations about the cyclist's positioning remain - know what's behind you and take command of the road. 

I do see a criticism of the CS7 paintwork in here. TfL were very straightforward about pointing out that cyclists were not confined to the blue sector, but I'm afraid, with the best will in the world, car drivers will see the blue sector as ours and the not-blue sector as theirs. Such is the level of bicycle traffic on this road that the blue sector is plainly insufficient, and it would be far better to simply turn the 'slow' lane along this stretch in to a bus lane.


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

It Clapham Common Southside (heading towards Clapham South tube), isn't it Gaz? They changed the road layout when they put the CS in - it used to be two narrow lanes southbound, now it's down to one lane and a cycle lane that is too narrow to facilitate cyclists overtaking/riding two abreast.

The second bit of driving (caught in the rear view cam) was agressive - he was clearly "driving angry" when he squeezed the cyclist towards the kerb. 

Oh, you did the right thing stepping in.

Your 1080 Contour def works better in the dark than my GoPro.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Nov 2010)

It often amazes me how people impute intention from drivers so easily and without any real evidence. It's happened quite a few times on just this topic already.

I make no conclusions about the driver's second overtake, but if I were to guess, I would say he "carefully" [1] squeezed past that cyclist in much the same way he squeezed past the lady cyclist from the first overtake. The two overtakes are reasonably consistent wrt passing distance, and the second was slightly less reckless than the first which is unsurprising given the telling off and encounter with three other cyclists and a video camera. I suspect he probably has an incorrect idea of how much room a cyclist should be given, and doesn't understand why we'd want more space than he gave.

[1] i.e. in his own mind.


----------



## BSRU (18 Nov 2010)

We also have no idea what the female cyclist said to the driver through his passenger window before Gaz managed to catch up .
It could have been something very offensive to make someone leave the safety of their metal box, but who knows.


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> It often amazes me how people impute intention from drivers so easily and without any real evidence. It's happened quite a few times on just this topic already.
> 
> I make no conclusions about the driver's second overtake, but if I were to guess, I would say he "carefully" [1] squeezed past that cyclist in much the same way he squeezed past the lady cyclist from the first overtake. The two overtakes are reasonably consistent wrt passing distance, and the second was slightly less reckless than the first which is unsurprising given the telling off and encounter with three other cyclists and a video camera. I suspect he probably has an incorrect idea of how much room a cyclist should be given, and doesn't understand why we'd want more space than he gave.
> 
> [1] i.e. in his own mind.



The second incident is different to the first as the driver has chosen to overtake when he could see the offside lane that he has moved into is blocked by traffic up ahead, and yet, he still decides to overtake an accelerating cyclist (who he had also had words with) and then squeezes the cyclists to the kerb (look how close he gets to the stationary car too) instead of waiting and indicating - this was an aggressive manoeuvre forcing the cyclist to take evasive action and palm off the car.

Was his judgment clouded by anger or was it just a another mistake...Who knows, but considering what had just taken place, I'd go with the former.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Nov 2010)

Except that like the others, you're leaping to conclusions without any evidence for it. It's noticeable that he gives the queueing cars less space than he gives the cyclist, and is not particularly aggressive with the manoeuvre. Bad driving all the same, but it's consistent with his earlier bad driving.


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Except that like the others, you're leaping to conclusions without any evidence for it. It's noticeable that he gives the queueing cars less space than he gives the cyclist, and is not particularly aggressive with the manoeuvre. Bad driving all the same, but it's consistent with his earlier bad driving.



I'm not *leaping to conclusions*, I'm expressing *an opinion *that the driver was "driving angry" in the second incident. That's my view (and that of others) given the preceding events. 

So what if he passed the cars closely - he still endangered the cyclist. It can only take a tap from a car to send you into the road. Forcing a cyclist (who had been involved in the "animated discussion" secs earlier) towards the kerb (and another cyclist) at speed is both aggressive and dangerous driving in my book.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> The second bit of driving (caught in the rear view cam) was agressive - he was clearly "driving angry" when he squeezed the cyclist towards the kerb.



That's more statement of fact than opinion. Definite leaping to conclusions.


----------



## Origamist (18 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That's more statement of fact than opinion. Definite leaping to conclusions.



No, that's my opinion. Would it help you if I put "IMO" before every sentence I write?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (18 Nov 2010)

gaz said:


> ....*her reflective panels are being lit up by my flasher*. and the street lights at this part are adequate enough that even though she is wearing darkish clothes, you can still see her.




Got to hand it to you, your vids are always action-packed. Though I was too busy looking at the car driver to notice the flasher


----------



## barongreenback (18 Nov 2010)

I'm new to commuting so forgive me if this is a daft point but...Did the cyclist need to overtake? Losing momentum is annoying but I'm sure many of us would be critical of a driver who overtakes just to travel an extra couple of mph faster.


----------



## ianrauk (18 Nov 2010)

barongreenback said:


> I'm new to commuting so forgive me if this is a daft point but...Did the cyclist need to overtake? Losing momentum is annoying but I'm sure many of us would be critical of a driver who overtakes just to travel an extra couple of mph faster.





Not a daft point at all. No she did not need to overtake.


----------



## clarion (21 Nov 2010)

She didn't _need_ to overtake. But she did so legally.


----------



## Lighthorse (22 Nov 2010)

clarion said:


> She didn't _need_ to overtake. But she did so legally.



*5) Cycling without due care and attention.*

*Source: *Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 29

*Offence: *It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Nov 2010)

Lighthorse, was the driver's driving better,the same, or worse than the cyclist's cycling?


----------



## Lighthorse (22 Nov 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Lighthorse, was the driver's driving better,the same, or worse than the cyclist's cycling?



*If there had been a collision*, the motorist would have been totally to blame. He overtook a vehicle which was in process of overtaking another vehicle.
Cyclists can ride two-a-breast. The HC suggests not to do this on busy town streets.

The motorist would have claimed the lady cyclist did not check before her manouver ( and therefore committed the offence ), which would have been true, but not justification for squeezing past.

The lady cyclist, and a court of law, would have found the motorist to be driving Dangerously, which is also an offence. The motorist would have been penalised.

Cyclists are not obliged to use the cycle lane. 
It is in their best interests to look around before moving sideways or change lane. The Lifesaver.


----------



## MacB (22 Nov 2010)

Not sure on this one, certainly not clear cut all the way:-

both cyclist and driver seemed to proceed from lights with a must pass mentality
looked like she was doing the cyclist version of the slow lorry overtake on a motorway, she didn't exactly zip by
not a lot of looking about from her either, gave the impression of someone that was target orientated and impatient
I'd guess the driver was also target orientated and I didn't think the overtake was that close, not for heavy traffic and the cyclist did wobble out a bit at the overtake point
Personally I wouldn't have overtaken at that point, had I been the driver, but I may have muttered to myself about the level of cycling
The afters were just that, unpredictable and potentially dangerous, I thought Gaz handled that pretty well

If I'd been the cyclist, after calming down, I might have been wondering to myself why I felt such a need to get by at that point. Whether driving or cycling I've never regretted a decision to sit back behind someone. In both cases I've had reason to regret a decision to pass, thankfully never with serious consequences.


----------



## WJHall (22 Nov 2010)

MacB said:


> Not sure on this one, certainly not clear cut all the way:-
> 
> both cyclist and driver seemed to proceed from lights with a must pass mentality
> looked like she was doing the cyclist version of the slow lorry overtake on a motorway, she didn't exactly zip by
> ...



Agreed, I have the distinct impression that we have been watching not very careful cyclist meets somewhat less careful motorist, with latent aggressive streak in at least one of them.

This seems to be some sort of cycle race track with lots of "roadies" including the overtaken cyclist, so I guess that the overtaken cyclist did not mind the rather close overtake, but in his place I find it unnerving to have other cyclists come past so close. As cyclist's often tell motorists, a certain amount of wobble room is desirable, and if he had wobbled right there could have been a collision, which would have been the overtakers fault, but could have brought both of them down in front of a car.

One of the unfortunate things about cycle lanes, is that they are lanes, and you should signal and observe before changing lane, and in this case do the job properly by allowing proper clearance on the overtaken vehicle. There is no point telling motorists to give 1.5 m clearance if we are going to cut each other up.

Just as bad are the cyclists who will overtake on the left just as you reach a point where the road widens on the left, at the end of a row of parked cars for example, and are obviously going to move left, without it even being necessary to change lane. In this country overtaking is done on the right. (Left filtering in slow moving traffic is another matter, and cannot apply here since both bicycle vehicles were obviously moving at their full speed.)


Nevertheless the guilty cyclist does seem to have been in that position for long enough for the driver to have no basis to claim that she wobbled out in front of him, so he should not have passed that close, although traffic in general seems to be passing fairly close, in fact the general lesson from the whole thing seems to be what ghastly environments cycle commuting takes you into.

WJH


----------



## Bollo (22 Nov 2010)

WJHall said:


> This seems to be some sort of cycle race track with lots of "roadies" including the overtaken cyclist, so I guess that the overtaken cyclist did not mind the rather close overtake, but in his place I find it unnerving to have other cyclists come past so close. As cyclist's often tell motorists, a certain amount of wobble room is desirable, and if he had wobbled right there could have been a collision, which would have been the overtakers fault, but could have brought both of them down in front of a car.


Just an observation, but I've found the expectations of what constitutes a close cyclist-cyclist overtake depends a lot on the local cycling culture. For example, I was surprised how close other cyclists would pass (or how little room I was given to pass) on Dutch feitpads. I think London is going the same way; as numbers increase there's less room per cyclist, but also a greater expectation and acceptance of closer riding.


----------



## WJHall (22 Nov 2010)

Bollo said:


> Just an observation, but I've found the expectations of what constitutes a close cyclist-cyclist overtake depends a lot on the local cycling culture. For example, I was surprised how close other cyclists would pass (or how little room I was given to pass) on Dutch feitpads. I think London is going the same way; as numbers increase there's less room per cyclist, but also a greater expectation and acceptance of closer riding.




Quite possible that Londoners have different expectations about personal space from we West Country folk, but now that I have looked at it several times I increasingly see the lady cyclist as the real source of the problem. The driver seems to slow down to almost the speed of the cyclists, and assess the situation before moving forward, I would not be impressed with the distance he leaves but it is not too unusual. I think he can be accused of misjudgement and of not understanding the distance that should be allowed. You will note the fact that he could have gone further over to the right, but chose to bisect the space between cyclist and right hand lane boundary, which is almost the norm, and ought to be worked on.

The cyclists generally seem to be treating the road with sort of exuberant attitude that motorists no doubt adopted about 1905. If we see motorists doing that today we justifiably condemn them. Things have become much more organised and roads are not racetracks, but transport systems where vehicles basically follow each other, and that applies to bicycles too.

In this case the road is plainly marked in lanes and vehicles should be using one or the other, not straddling the lane boundary like the lady cyclist, and while overtaking too.


----------



## WJHall (22 Nov 2010)

continued....

And even if you take the extreme traditional CTC view that cyclists should not need lights because it is the drivers job to look where he is going, which is an entirely reasonable view, she has overlooked the fact that lights do make you more visible, and that certain lights are legally required, which she does not have. 

In general a very poor understanding of road traffic practice and law.

WJH


----------



## Origamist (22 Nov 2010)

WJHall said:


> Quite possible that Londoners have different expectations about personal space from we West Country folk, but now that I have looked at it several times I increasingly see the lady cyclist as the real source of the problem. The driver seems to slow down to almost the speed of the cyclists, and assess the situation before moving forward, I would not be impressed with the distance he leaves but it is not too unusual. I think he can be accused of misjudgement and of not understanding the distance that should be allowed. You will note the fact that he could have gone further over to the right, but chose to bisect the space between cyclist and right hand lane boundary, which is almost the norm, and ought to be worked on.
> 
> The cyclists generally seem to be treating the road with sort of exuberant attitude that motorists no doubt adopted about 1905. If we see motorists doing that today we justifiably condemn them. Things have become much more organised and roads are not racetracks, but transport systems where vehicles basically follow each other, and that applies to bicycles too.
> 
> In this case the road is plainly marked in lanes and vehicles should be using one or the other, not straddling the lane boundary like the lady cyclist, and while overtaking too.



Well, I agree with parts of what you are saying, but transport systems are not predicated on vehicles simply following one another. Overtaking and to a lesser extent, undertaking is an accepted practice. This does not mean that cyclists should overtake/filter at every conceivable opportunity, but given the high volumes of cyclists in the rush-hour, a narrow 1.5m cycle lane, and considerable variance in cyclist speeds, there is going to be a higher level of proximity to other cyclists and an attendant increase in "blue on blue" incidents. 

As for straddling lanes, this can often be justifiable. Vehicles can enter the cycle lane and cyclists have a right to leave the cycle lane in order to pass another cyclist, wet leaves, or for other compelling reasons. Regimented use of narrow cycle lanes is often not condusive with safe riding in my experience, and for that reason, I'll position myself where I deem it safest given the traffic conditions at the time.


----------



## WJHall (22 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Well, I agree with parts of what you are saying, but transport systems are not predicated on vehicles simply following one another. Overtaking and to a lesser extent, undertaking is an accepted practice. This does not mean that cyclists should overtake/filter at every conceivable opportunity, but given the high volumes of cyclists in the rush-hour, a narrow 1.5m cycle lane, and considerable variance in cyclist speeds, there is going to be a higher level of proximity to other cyclists and an attendant increase in "blue on blue" incidents.
> 
> As for straddling lanes, this can often be justifiable. Vehicles can enter the cycle lane and cyclists have a right to leave the cycle lane in order to pass another cyclist, wet leaves, or for other compelling reasons. Regimented use of narrow cycle lanes is often not condusive with safe riding in my experience, and for that reason, I'll position myself where I deem it safest given the traffic conditions at the time.



The problem, and why what she did was not safest positioning, which is something that probably did not enter her mind, is that she did not really leave the cycle lane, she straddled the boundary throughout her manoeuvre. Straddling is not the same as crossing it , and if I had been the other cyclist would have been too close to me for my comfort.

Compare the much wider overtake by another cyclist seen earlier in the video, where he also takes advantage of the ASL box and the lights to position himself correctly.Not only is his positioning better, but he chooses the right moment. The whole aim of lanes is to define separate streams of traffic and you should attempt to be in one or the other, making a clean and definite change. That is why even before lane markings became general instruction for drivers included dividing the road mentally into lanes, and not to squeeze through any gap that might appear.

Consider for comparison, overtaking in a car on a motorway and straddling the lane markers on the overtaken vehicle side throughout!

The presence of increasing numbers of other people, even people on bicycles, is an argument for greater care and consideration, not less, but folk do say it be different in London.

Undertaking definitely not allowed, only left filtering.

WJH


----------



## Origamist (22 Nov 2010)

WJHall said:


> The problem, and why what she did was not safest positioning, which is something that probably did not enter her mind, is that she did not really leave the cycle lane, she straddled the boundary throughout her manoeuvre. Straddling is not the same as crossing it , and if I had been the other cyclist would have been too close to me for my comfort.
> 
> Compare the much wider overtake by another cyclist seen earlier in the video, where he also takes advantage of the ASL box and the lights to position himself correctly.Not only is his positioning better, but he chooses the right moment. The whole aim of lanes is to define separate streams of traffic and you should attempt to be in one or the other, making a clean and definite change. That is why even before lane markings became general instruction for drivers included dividing the road mentally into lanes, and not to squeeze through any gap that might appear.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with your assessment of the riding in the video, but I think you need to be more adaptable about lane positioning in high density traffic situations as conditions are more fluid and traffic engineering can often feel like a rough old compromise / poorly designed experiment. In some circumstances, straddling a lane will feel like the right thing to do - although in the case mentioned above, it's rarely advisable. I generally ride in the cycle lane, or the centre of the traffic lane or the opposing lane on that route.

As for the proximity of the cyclist's overtake, it was too close - it would not bother me, but I suspect quite a few cyclists would expect/appreciate a bit more room - and they have every right too.

Bus lanes are based around undertaking slower or stationary vehicles to your right - I do it every day but it comes with problems.


----------



## WJHall (22 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> I don't disagree with your assessment of the riding in the video, but I think you need to be more adaptable about lane positioning in high density traffic situations as conditions are more fluid and traffic engineering can often feel like a rough old compromise / poorly designed experiment. In some circumstances, straddling a lane will feel like the right thing to do - although in the case mentioned above, it's rarely advisable. I generally ride in the cycle lane, or the centre of the traffic lane or the opposing lane on that route.
> 
> As for the proximity of the cyclist's overtake, it was too close - it would not bother me, but I suspect quite a few cyclists would expect/appreciate a bit more room - and they have every right too.
> 
> Bus lanes are based around undertaking slower or stationary vehicles to your right - I do it every day but it comes with problems.



Indeed, yes, bus lanes....

First we have a traffic system fundamentally based on faster traffic overtaking on the right, then some bright spark comes along and invents bus lanes, putting faster traffic on the left, directly adjacent to the pavement. Also, remembering that cyclists in bus lanes is a fairly general concession not an invariable rule, it can be the cyclists who have very large vehicles whizzing past on the left. (Makes the behaviour of the lady cyclist and drivers seem quite reasonable!)

And by some Pavlovian response to the word 'bus' (green, eco friendly socialist public transport etc....) everyone thinks that this is wonderful, particularly for cyclists. There was a time when it was, but that was in the age, when, in a distinctively British form of planning, councils enthusiastically built bus lanes without actually arranging for any bus services to run in them. Now, with actual buses appearing in bus lanes, being allowed to use them for cycling somehow seems less attractive.

WJH


----------



## Origamist (22 Nov 2010)

WJHall said:


> Indeed, yes, bus lanes....
> 
> First we have a traffic system fundamentally based on faster traffic overtaking on the right, then some bright spark comes along and invents bus lanes, putting faster traffic on the left, directly adjacent to the pavement. Also, remembering that cyclists in bus lanes is a fairly general concession not an invariable rule, it can be the cyclists who have very large vehicles whizzing past on the left. (Makes the behaviour of the lady cyclist and drivers seem quite reasonable!)
> 
> ...




Bus lanes are indeed a double-edged sword - generally speaking I like them, but I realise that to a large proportion of (particularly) non-cyclists sharing a faster moving lane on the left with buses, taxis and motorbikes is rather short on appeal and hardly a cycling paradise. However, much of the conflicts in bus lanes comes from traffic pulling out and turning into side roads - not from buses themselves (we're back to junctions).

Anyway, it's a shame you do not post here more frequently - WJH.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Nov 2010)

From a cyclist point of view, bus lanes are more awesome than an awesome thing, IMO.


----------



## clarion (23 Nov 2010)

I love bus lanes. They're the safest part of cycling in the city. Wherever you are on the road, you will be getting the idiots pulling out from the side, cutting across you etc etc. In a bus lane, you can make safe progress through the rest of the traffic with space to see and deal with such annoyances.


----------



## jonny jeez (23 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> Anyway, it's a shame you do not post here more frequently - WJH.



Oh, get a room!!


----------



## Origamist (23 Nov 2010)

clarion said:


> I love bus lanes. They're the safest part of cycling in the city. Wherever you are on the road, you will be getting the idiots pulling out from the side, cutting across you etc etc. In a bus lane, you can make safe progress through the rest of the traffic with space to see and deal with such annoyances.



I agree, most cyclists like them (myself included), but they're rarely continuous, often time limited, often of a critical width for cyclists (3.25m - 4m) and they're increasingly colonized by motorbikes and taxis. What's more, if Addison Lee get their way in the courts, private hire vehicles will also be entitled to use bus lanes in London...


----------



## ianrauk (23 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> I agree, most cyclists like them (myself included), but they're rarely continuous, often time limited, often of a critical width for cyclists (3.25m - 4m) and they're increasingly colonized by motorbikes and taxis. What's more,* if Addison Lee get their way in the courts, private hire vehicles will also be entitled to use bus lanes in London...*



Good God no!!


----------



## Jezston (24 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> I agree, most cyclists like them (myself included), but they're rarely continuous, often time limited, often of a critical width for cyclists (3.25m - 4m) and they're increasingly colonized by motorbikes and taxis. What's more, if Addison Lee get their way in the courts, private hire vehicles will also be entitled to use bus lanes in London...



OH DEAR GOD!

I don't live in London but plan to again in the future. Let me know where I can sign to stop this happening!


----------



## barongreenback (24 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1246034"]
There was a consultation in Birmingham recently, and the sensible outcome was that private hire cars can't use bus lanes. Wahay!
[/quote]

I wish the local police would enforce the bus lanes properly. I'm fed up of getting aggressive drivers zooming past me on Suffolk St Queensway by the theatre down to Holloway circus. People keep chancing it to gain an extra minute rather than sitting in traffic in the tunnel.


----------



## Dan B (24 Nov 2010)

Origamist said:


> [bus lanes are] often time limited


Without prejudice to your other points, I have rarely seen this to be a problem. Most car drivers stay out of bus lanes even outside their hours of operation due to (1) not knowing the hours of operation and (2) "rule 2"[1] which states that one must always drive with right-hand wheels abutting the centre line.

In fairness, if the traffic in the rh lane is moving at any more than about 10mph, it does actually make good sense to stick in it instead of taking the bus lane and getting stuck behind a bus or a parked behicle.



[1] "rule 1", of course, being "overtake the cyclist"


----------



## gaz (24 Nov 2010)

coruskate said:


> Without prejudice to your other points, I have rarely seen this to be a problem. Most car drivers stay out of bus lanes even outside their hours of operation due to (1) not knowing the hours of operation and (2) "rule 2"[1] which states that one must always drive with right-hand wheels abutting the centre line.


From my experience, the ones that do drive in the bus lanes are fraking idiots and I've had a few close calls from it.
But most drivers don't drive in the bus lanes


----------



## ianrauk (24 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1246039"]
This amazes me with respect to the amount of ignorance shown by car drivers. There is a bus lane local to where I live where the hours of operation are 0700-1900hrs Mon-Sat. *The amount of times I have travelled down the road on a Sunday to see a traffic jam that goes on for about a 1/4 of a mile and no-one uses the bus lane (*except me of course).
[/quote]

The same as the A21 bus lane in Bromley.


----------



## Origamist (24 Nov 2010)

coruskate said:


> Without prejudice to your other points, I have rarely seen this to be a problem. Most car drivers stay out of bus lanes even outside their hours of operation due to (1) not knowing the hours of operation and (2) "rule 2"[1] which states that one must always drive with right-hand wheels abutting the centre line.
> 
> In fairness, if the traffic in the rh lane is moving at any more than about 10mph, it does actually make good sense to stick in it instead of taking the bus lane and getting stuck behind a bus or a parked behicle.
> 
> ...



It is certainly true that a significant proportion of drivers do not use bus lanes when they are de-restricted and, like you, I am quite happy to trade on their ignorance. However, this state of affairs is not ideal as a number of drivers are very much aware of the bus lane hours of operation and when they see a “clear” slab of bus lane (only a cyclist in the mid distance!) they often start whizzing along (often accompanied by a helpful beep when they come up behind you). This can then cause a domino effect – i.e. other drivers who were crawling along in the right-hand lane then pull into the bus lane as they realise it’s unrestricted and is effectively a parallel undertaking lane.

Narrow bus lanes in these situations now start to cause problems (only a tiny minority of bus drivers would try to pass a cyclist within a bus lane if the width is around 3m) but quite a few car drivers simply expect cyclists to position themselves 30cm from the road edge to facilitate very close overtakes...I find this sort of behaviour particularly prevalent on Sundays when many of the bus lanes near me are open to all, but considerably less common, Mon to Fri, when a lot of drivers simply assume it’s peak time all day long...


----------



## barongreenback (24 Nov 2010)

[QUOTE 1246042"]
I just take the lane on that bit -ride down the middle and stop them getting past.
[/quote]

After my first couple of commutes that's exactly what I've been doing. The taxis and buses are generally very patient, which is good. Keep an eye out for me between 5:10 and 5:20 - I'm the Christmas tree


----------



## Grizzly (1 Dec 2010)

Back to the question, "is a driver getting out of their car an act of potential aggression?". I'd say the answer lies in another question, what was the driver trying to achieve by getting out of the car? I think in this case he was trying to intimidate the cyclist so in this case the answer is yes. I've only had a driver get out of his car once (I've just had a thought, has anyone ever known a woman get out of her car to discuss an issue?), and that was caused because a sounded my horn at him (I was in my car at the time) after he nearly hit a cyclist. I crapped myself but decided it would be better if I was out of my car facing him rather than sitting below him trying to defend myself. As soon as I got out his posture and face completely changed (I'm only 5' 6"), he muttered a few words then left. Typical behaviour of a bully.

The points made about defensive riding are spot on, you need to ride in a way that dominates the road and discourages other road users from overtaking.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Dec 2010)

Grizzly said:


> ... and that was caused because a sounded my horn at him



Your job isn't to admonish other drivers.

Do this and expect the unexpected.


----------



## Grizzly (1 Dec 2010)

400bhp said:


> Your job isn't to admonish other drivers.
> 
> Do this and expect the unexpected.



My horn was used to warn another road user of my presence, which is correct according to the highway code, but thanks for telling me what I should and should not be doing.


----------



## Origamist (1 Dec 2010)

Grizzly said:


> My horn was used to warn another road user of my presence, which is correct according to the highway code, *but thanks for telling me what I should and should not be doing.*



Grizzly, you better learn quick and toughen-up - that's all people do on this sub-forum


----------



## BentMikey (1 Dec 2010)

400bhp said:


> Your job isn't to admonish other drivers.
> 
> Do this and expect the unexpected.



OTOH your job is to admonish forum users, yes?


----------



## 400bhp (1 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> OTOH your job is to admonish forum users, yes?



There's laws on the road. There isn't on forums.

I'll say what I like thank you.


----------



## 400bhp (1 Dec 2010)

Grizzly said:


> My horn was used to warn another road user of my presence, which is correct according to the highway code, but thanks for telling me what I should and should not be doing.



Yeah, of course you did


----------



## BentMikey (1 Dec 2010)

You filthy hypocrite!!


----------



## cheadle hulme (2 Dec 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> As other's have pointed out, the woman's riding left a lot to be desired, the *blokes driving likewise (although potentially more grave consequences).*



Really? At those sort of speeds, I'd rather a streamlined car brushed past than another cyclist.


And what if the guy couldn't hear what the cyclist was saying and got out to hear better? He's immediately got a posh sounding guy right in his face "advising" him not to do anything stupid! Talk about inflaming a minor situation......


----------



## BentMikey (2 Dec 2010)

Tell you what, if I'd been that girl, I would have been extremely glad Gaz intervened. It might have been nothing, but I doubt that very much given how the dude tried to push past Gaz. Gaz is a gentleman and deserves mucho credit.

p.s. if you think Gaz has a posh accent, LMAO! Perhaps that goes to show just how well you observed that video?


----------



## ianrauk (2 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Tell you what, if I'd been that girl, I would have been extremely glad Gaz intervened. It might have been nothing, but I doubt that very much given how the dude tried to push past Gaz. Gaz is a gentleman and deserves mucho credit.
> 
> p.s. if you think Gaz has a posh accent, LMAO! Perhaps that goes to show just how well you observed that video?



I was going to say, Gaz? A Posho? LMAO


----------



## magnatom (3 Dec 2010)

ianrauk said:


> I was going to say, Gaz? A Posho? LMAO



Next he'll be saying I sound like Barrie White......


----------



## CopperBrompton (3 Dec 2010)

Poor cycling, worse driving. I have to say, though, that I thought you were over-aggressive, Gaz. The driver is saying "What I want to say to you madam", which does not suggest any aggression on his part. I would have let him have his say, and remained there just in case.


----------

