18 months?

[mustang1]

Just trying to get to the details here as to how the events unfolded. This is what I think reading between the lines because the detail is missing:
A truck stopped suddenly in front of the Land Rover (a luxury one according to the Guardian, what colour was it anyway, why even mention it's a luxury LR, irrelevant). The LR guy had to brake suddenly and the cyclist crashed into the car and then spat on it.

See, that bit does not make sense. I don't ride so close to a car that I cannot stop in time, and if i was to crash into a car, spitting on it isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. The LR driver was clearly a nutjob for going after the cyclist though but I wish I could get more clarity from the Guardian article.

 

[grldtnr]

Punctuation, or you read the syntax wrong, could be the cyclistbwad being an arse in riding aggressively,in the first place, in avoiding the bin truck , I take it he came into contact with the luxobarge,

 

[Alex321]

Just trying to get to the details here as to how the events unfolded. This is what I think reading between the lines because the detail is missing:
A truck stopped suddenly in front of the Land Rover (a luxury one according to the Guardian, what colour was it anyway, why even mention it's a luxury LR, irrelevant). The LR guy had to brake suddenly and the cyclist crashed into the car and then spat on it.

See, that bit does not make sense. I don't ride so close to a car that I cannot stop in time, and if i was to crash into a car, spitting on it isn't the first thing that comes to my mind. The LR driver was clearly a nutjob for going after the cyclist though but I wish I could get more clarity from the Guardian article.

There is a lot more detail here https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...its-not-worth-youll-end-22455452?fr=operanews

It seems the cyclist tried to squeeze through a narrow gap between the bin lorry and the Freelander, and bumped against the car, possibly catching the wing mirror.

The spitting on the car happened after the LR guy had chased down the cyclist.

 

[Arjimlad]

There is a lot more detail here https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...its-not-worth-youll-end-22455452?fr=operanews

It seems the cyclist tried to squeeze through a narrow gap between the bin lorry and the Freelander, and bumped against the car, possibly catching the wing mirror.

The spitting on the car happened after the LR guy had chased down the cyclist.

An early apology can defuse a lot but Alan Moult's rage was utterly inexcusable. I was chased down onto the pavement in 1991 by an enraged taxi driver after cycling on a roundabout in the correct lane and taking primary. It was very frightening and I daresay I shouted at him in fear.

 

[mustang1]

There is a lot more detail here https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...its-not-worth-youll-end-22455452?fr=operanews

It seems the cyclist tried to squeeze through a narrow gap between the bin lorry and the Freelander, and bumped against the car, possibly catching the wing mirror.

The spitting on the car happened after the LR guy had chased down the cyclist.

This is what I deduce:
Cyclist went into a narrow and dangerous gap: he shouldn't have.
Cyclist clipped car wing mirror: he shouldn't have.
Driver gave chase: he shouldn't have.
Driver ran cyclist down: he really shouldn't have.

When one car driver knocks into another, there is the potential for argument but in the end, insurance companies sort it out and the drivers end up paying a higher premium the following year.

When a cyclist knocks into a car, the feeling in the car driving community is "those privileged cyclists think they can flout the law, riding with no tax or insurance, and now I have to pay for this damage that the cyclist caused." It sucks if it happens but the driver has to be held to a higher and more responsible standard.

In the end, both the cyclist and the driver were idiots (as mentioned, the driver more so), and they both paid the price.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Moral of the article - listen to your wife. And she was spot on.

 

[grldtnr]

This is what I deduce:
Cyclist went into a narrow and dangerous gap: he shouldn't have.
Cyclist clipped car wing mirror: he shouldn't have.
Driver gave chase: he shouldn't have.
Driver ran cyclist down: he really shouldn't have.

When one car driver knocks into another, there is the potential for argument but in the end, insurance companies sort it out and the drivers end up paying a higher premium the following year.

When a cyclist knocks into a car, the feeling in the car driving community is "those privileged cyclists think they can flout the law, riding with no tax or insurance, and now I have to pay for this damage that the cyclist caused." It sucks if it happens but the driver has to be held to a higher and more responsible standard.

In the end, both the cyclist and the driver were idiots (as mentioned, the driver more so), and they both paid the price.

There's such a thing as comprehensive insurance _ protected NCB, would the driver be out of pocket, maybe if he is a skinflint, but a more acceptable thing would have been exchange of details with the cyclist, and invoicing if at fault.

 

[Pale Rider]

A roadie once rested his hand on the roof of my car at traffic lights, presumably to save him from having to unclip.

I will admit to being slightly miffed, although not so upset as to cause me to say anything.