A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Roger Merriman on 18 May 2010 04:37 JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> wrote: > Lifted from uk.rec.cycling.moderated > > > >I found this overtake frightening!! > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnH8hjjgbw > > > What a prick. > > OK he had stopped and put a hand down - but not a foot. > > (PS He is an A* knob as he has to have two cameras) the police car could have altered it's line to give him a bit more room, looking at the vid the oncoming car was not a issue (too far away) so the police car could of been over to the middle more, with out slowling etc. so yes that would of been close and fast. to be honest if the bike is up for it, I tend to mount the kerb and park up if I hear a high speed police car. (assuming it's coming my way) though the bent is unlikely to mangage that. roger -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 18 May 2010 04:58 On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:31:07 +0100, "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube to >show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera. anyone who keeps two videos running the whole time and rides an "enthusiast" bike like that runs a good chance of being a fanatical prick. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Bernard on 18 May 2010 05:48 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Roger Thorpe wrote: > > Mrcheerful wrote: > > >> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had > >> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well > >> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the > >> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be > >> passed quite closely without any significant danger. > >> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more > >> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent) experienced > >> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped. > > > If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to give > > someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright? > > Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens. > Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a vulnerable road user but is not treated as such. This was not a normal situation, it was an emergency which he realised because he stopped. If he was worried because he felt vulnerable, he should have got off the road.
From: GT on 18 May 2010 09:51 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Roger Thorpe wrote: > > Mrcheerful wrote: >> >> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had >> >> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well >> >> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the >> >> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be >> >> passed quite closely without any significant danger. >> >> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more >> >> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent) experienced >> >> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped. >> >> > If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to give >> > someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright? >> >> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens. >> >Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a >vulnerable road user but is not treated as such. The police driver will have seen the adult pull over and stop as the sirens moved closer. He left an 18-inch gap between his car and the stationary vehicle as he knew that the cyclist was aware of the car's presense. If the cyclist had not been aware of the police car, then the driver would have left a much larger gap. >> The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube to >> show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera. >> >Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous >situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. As I >have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers >going through red lights and driving on pavements. > Good idea, then most cyclists would be banned - I rarely see a cyclist stop for a red light!! I have never seen a car go throught a red light or drive on the pavement. The cyclist in the video has a number of clips posted on youtube. I have just watched a few and it seems that he likes to ride along about 1m out from the kerb which is fine. Problem is that he deliberately makes it hard for people to overtake him, so when they do he suddenly drifts out a metre or two apparently without looking or signalling. This clearly dangerous behaviour is carefully timed to occur just as the cars go past, which enables him to put on a frightened "waa" sound on film and then shout at them at the next set of lights. He then carefully positions his bike in the middle of the lane in front of all the cars who are patiently waiting their turn at the lights and then sets off slowly, so as to ensnare his next victim. He doesn't use the cycle lanes. He is clearly try to infuriate the car drivers who *are* able to maintain an appropriate speed for the road. In order to drive a car a driver must pass a test to prove their knowledge of the highway code, a document stating that vehicles unable to maintain a suitable speed for the road should pull over to let faster vehicles pass and avoid frustration!
From: Doug on 18 May 2010 12:46
On 18 May, 10:48, "Bernard" <bernard.x.rams...(a)btinterent.x.com> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > Roger Thorpe wrote: > > > Mrcheerful wrote: > > > >> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had > > >> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well > > >> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the > > >> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be > > >> passed quite closely without any significant danger. > > >> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more > > >> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent) experienced > > >> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped. > > > > If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to give > > > someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright? > > > Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens. > > Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a > vulnerable road user but is not treated as such. > > This was not a normal situation, it was an emergency which he realised > because he stopped. If he was worried because he felt vulnerable, he should > have got off the road. > But we know by now that the pavements are not much safer from crashing cars, which can also knock holes in walls. Difficult to know where is safe from these pampered killers. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |