- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Mr Penis Head holds forthVideo: "My name is Penis Head" — meet Britain's sweariest driver
Sometimes helmetcam riders get talking to drivers who’ve done stupid things and the conversation goes no further than a simple apology, albeit often followed by “mate, I didn’t see you”. But sometimes, despite being clearly in the wrong, a driver will go right off the deep end anyway, like the chap here who we’re going to call Mr Penis Head, since he says that’s his name.
It’s one of the few repeatable things he does say and you’ll want to turn down the volume if your workmates have tender ears.
In the video, the rider who goes by the YouTube handle Urbane is crossing a roundabout at what appears to be the end of Harbourne Gardens in Southampton.
As the rider approaches the first exit from the roundabout, Mr Penis Head, driving a Jaguar with stickers and logos enters the roundabout. The rider sounds his horn and after the driver stops and reverses into the roundabout a full and frank exchange of views follows, with Mr Penis Head delivering most of the frankness.
In his comments on YouTube, Urbane says: “I thought I was pretty diplomatic, considering the circumstances” and we tend to agree. Here’s how it went down in his own words:
Parental Advisory... Excessive swearing, aggressive behavior and stupid driving.
This rabid loon is called, by his own admission, Penishead Cockfacedcunt ;-0 although it said Mark on his sticker.
He is probably an inspirational figurehead and a fine representative for PowerSlideRides (logos and his name conveniently plastered all over his XJS), but I fear he may have had a tad too much high octane go-go juice in his veins, when he nearly ran me over this morning. Perhaps he had been drinking diesel instead of petrol that morning.
I hit my horn, as a warning, before the car is even on the roundabout, and (despite what he says) you can see that I am easily half way across before the car rips past, narrowly missing me on my bike.
He screeched to a halt and reversed round the roundabout (!) to confront me for having the temerity to honk my horn at him. But he soon scuttled back into his vehicle when I was not intimidated by his shiny piston shaped head and aggressive swearing.
I thought I was pretty diplomatic, considering the circumstances, if he had just said sorry everything would have been quickly forgotten. But now, I'm going to let the viewers decide...
Who do you think is being aggressive? 
While Mr Penis Head doesn't manage the sheer delivery speed and quantity of expletives of the previous holder of the title of Britain's Sweariest Driver, we think he makes up for it with a wider range of creative abuse. Coincidentally, or perhaps not if you believe that the car you drive says something about your personality - both of the potty mouthed protaganists drive Jags.
We should point out that although the car in this video clearly displays the name, phone numbers and website of a business that doesn't necessarily mean that the driver is associated with those phone numbers - and as the business in question has so far proved uncontactable the true identity of the driver cannot be verified - except that he goes by the name of Penis Head.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- fenix 7 min 7 sec ago
But it's got PNS on ? Honestly. You just don't get fashion.
- mdavidford 58 min 38 sec ago
Debatable. Rule H3 says you should not cut across cyclists, and that this applies whether they're on a cycle lane, cycle track, or on the road. It...
- LookAhead 1 hour 19 min ago
Spot on, Kask's chin strap is faux leather (contra the review's claim that it's real leather) and excellent, by far the best I've used. It's snug...
- David9694 2 hours 37 min ago
Live: Audi crashes on to its roof in Honiton town centre https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/live-audi-crashes-roof-honiton...
- wtjs 2 hours 52 min ago
There is now a development of uncertain veracity on this Nissan, with a photo somebody has sent me suggesting it's stolen....
- belugabob 3 hours 26 min ago
Yes, it does seem reasonable - but not in the motonormativity world, where people just don't want to admit where the problem lies.
- brooksby 5 hours 50 min ago
But at least they're halfway there...
- hawkinspeter 7 hours 32 min ago
I definitely agree that we could do with better crossings and junctions....
- check12 9 hours 40 min ago
click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of them all, then you won't get any more
- Hirsute 10 hours 59 min ago
A few problems here https://youtu.be/0P0a_n6XgrQ?t=125
Add new comment
192 comments
And finally, I get to 'meet' the person speaking for "the majority of the cycling community". Hi there!
It's funny how the two of you complain about people being "unpleasant" while at the same time showing the exact kind of behaviour yourselves that you claim to be too mature for. Know what that makes you? Twatwaffles. Of the particularly dumb and full of themselves kind. I'm certainly not above insulting people if I feel that it's deserved. And, evidently, neither are you - but unlike me, you claim you are when you're clearly not. That is what I would call "unpleasant".
It's jolly nice nice of you, Andy, to finally come forward. Why not earlier though? A lot of the suspicion could have been avoided that way. Especially given the way that Harry here seems incapable of sticking to a specific version of his story, just like he seems incapable of sticking to a specific version of his arguments. First the email address was "false", then he changed this to "decided not to put the email address it was sent from". I don't think anybody here could possibly be blamed for finding his story a tad hard to believe initially and even more so afterwards, until you came along and confirmed at least parts of it.
And Harry, you still haven't answered the question posed to you, by me and at least two others in this thread, what the heck makes you think that a cyclist who takes all possible precautions, riding defensively and carefully, fully abiding by the rules of the road, is somehow still to blame for being wiped out? You were not particularly coherent in this regard before, maybe you want to try again?
I'm sorry that some comments here got into a spiral of rudeness. It really doesn't help anybody (but it is an ever-present temptation to go that way in these sorts of arguments). And I do think that casting doubts on the story of how Harry_J came to post here was a bit unnecessary (and not relevant to the topic anyway)
But, Harry_J, while polite, has stuck to a totally fixed-position, which is simply incorrect.
Take the following statements:
"there are bad drivers, there are bad cyclists, they all cause accidents, angst and trauma."
At attempt at equivalence which is just flat-out factually wrong. The bad drivers cause far, far more trauma than the bad cyclists.
" i'm saying cycling is dangerous"
Again, wrong. Cycling isn't dangerous - its the driving that brings the danger to the situation. Its that old transitive/intransitive distinction again.
" why not learn to co exist with motorists? you will not change the fact they are human so why try?"
This just comes across as patronising, and also misses the point. Almost all cyclists who stay on the roads have had no choice but to 'learn to co-exist with motorists', but it doesn't keep them safe because at least a substantial minority of drivers just won't learn to co-exist with cyclists. (Incidentally, my experience is that most 'bad cyclists' don't deal with motorists at all, because they stick entirely to the pavements).
And I agree we can't change the fact of drivers being normal flawed humans, which is why, in my opinion, we need better infrastructure to improve our chances against those humans with weapons (who behave in the way humans always do when they have weapons). Better law enforcement would help as well though.
"cyclists as the vulnerable should take on the mindset that being in the right does not keep you safe. "
Again - that just comes over as patronising, as everyone here already knows that from experience. Anyone taking up cycling on the roads will learn that very quickly. And again, its why things need to change.
What annoyed me initially was your (Harry_J)'s claim that there's an equivalence, that 'bad cyclists' are exactly equivalent to 'bad motorists' in both numbers and effect. A lot of drivers seem to think that and it is just nonsense on stilts.
And as I've pointed out as well Fluffy, by far the majority of adult cyclists are drivers also.
<p>Is this thread still open after 4 years?</p>
Excuse me? They take, or should take, just as much room as a car would. Would you overtake a slower car on a single carriageway when there is oncoming traffic on the right hand lane? No, you would not. So what the fuck makes you think you are entitled to treat cyclists any differently, who have no crumble zones, nothing in the way of protection against your speeding armoured steel carriage, and may need to swerve around potholes or shit that cars leave behind on the road?
How much room do we take up? As much room as we fucking need! And you, you wait until it's safe to overtake - or you don't overtake. If you haven't read the Highway Code, this might be news for you: you have to overtake any vehicle including bicycles in a safe manner by giving enough room no matter whether they are riding single file or two abreast. One single carriageways that means waiting until there is no oncoming traffic and then using the right hand lane to overtake. Just like you would overtake a slower car. Highway Code rule 163, it's even got a nice picture for the hard of reading.
There is no "even if that was the case" here, that is the case. Look it up.
And that doesn't make the cyclist more dangerous than the driver. Which was what you were saying. It is dangerous for the cyclist, indeed - guess who is the party posing the danger? Correct, the driver. It's not that hard to understand, is it? Unless you're hellbent on not understanding it.
See, this is why people think you may just be trolling. You should be well aware that I wasn't calling a cyclist getting hurt a border case. I was calling a cyclist being responsible for it a border case. And I like to think that was quite obvious. Unless one were to deliberately ignore it and turn it into saying the complete opposite - which is a main trolling tactic to get a rise out of people.
It's not the fact that it differs from mine that means it has no merit - it's that it has nothing to do with any known facts. Which have been pointed out to you by more than half a dozen people here, and yet you remain entirely resistant to either comprehending them or admitting to comprehending them.
My 'assertions' are not baseless, they are backed up by publicly available statistics, which is why the percentage numbers you've been quoted here have a tendency to be consistent: we've seen the statistics. You either have not or you are ignoring them. But yes, I'm sure the Department for Transport just makes shit up so that you can keep clinging to your "valid view point".
One last time: yes, in the vast majority of cases of accidents involving a cyclist and a motorist it's the latter that is responsible. That's what the official statistics are saying. There is no debating that, there is no "looking at it from another side", nada. It's terrible driving that makes the road dangerous. Not cycling two abreast, not suddenly swerving around a pothole, not veering to the right for half a metre because of a wind gust, not being in the way of a Neanderthal with a licence.
Your 'point' is not valid. It won't get magically valid by repeating it, or by insisting it's valid because it's yours or because it differs from mine, or any of that shit - it is simply an objectively wrong argument to make which flies in the face of the known facts. It's not based on real world numbers, it's not based on anything - it's stomping your foot on the ground and shouting "You're mean!"
Sorry, but when the topic is something that is a threat to your life and physical safety on a regular basis because of the ignorance of certain road users, it's kind of hard to react positively to 'humour' from just such a person.
Oh, this just takes the cake, mate ... Please take your own advice here. Please. Gain some fucking perspective.
Yes, wilful ignorance will bring that out in people. But you knew that, didn't you?
Mate, that statement paired with the standard of reading comprehension you're displaying here just makes me laugh. It's not a happy "ha ha ha" kind of laugh, more of a pained "heh, funny that".
Why don't you get off your fucking high horse and actually respond to what people are saying? Oh, it's the tone in which it is said now is it? How about you don't go out of your way of ignoring and misrepresenting those things, or flat out turning them up on their head just so you can bash your straw men?
You made a 'point'. People told you why that's a nonsense point to make. You keep repeating it. Some people lost interest, others lost their 'temper' - yet still trying to explain to you why it's a nonsense point, including myself. You still keep repeating it. This 'intellectual battle' as you call it has all the hallmarks of a muppet going on a forum for the sole purpose of trolling it.
And again with the sidetracking and distracting. Being shielded from harm on the road is not the issue here. The issue is, and you started it by making a nonsense claim, who is responsible for causing the harm.
The official statistics on this are clear. Feel free to keep ignoring it, feel free to paint yourself as the victim here, but don't expect me to take you seriously if you do.
If you want an 'intellectual battle', go trolling elsewhere - but if you want a sensible conversation, try actually being sensible yourself for a change and actually read and comprehend what is being said. That's kind of a major prerequisite for that kind of thing.
I have looked at your perspective. And I have told you that your perspective is skewed and completely resistant to facts, and why. Just like everyone else on here has done.
The fact that you keep insisting on it most likely means one of two things: you're either very dumb or you're a troll. Do you want me to call you dumb instead?
Well, not that obvious. Not unless you can demonstrate there's a meaningful, qualititative difference between the groups in terms of their likelihood to cause injury or death to others. Not that I know what the relevant figures are, mind.
Also, you are saying you _do_ include the 8 year-old?
Look at your wad.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2008/11/11/loadsa...
(Just kidding with you, it was there for the taking.)
Because otherwise one would be being arbitrary and inconsistent - which is generally a poor approach to law-making. If you want to declare there's something that distinguishes cyclists from horse-riders and pedestrians that is relevant to the issue of insurance, you need to demonstrate that. Otherwise its just a punitive act of random prejudice.
(Note I don't actually know if the data could in fact be found to demonstrate this significant difference or not, but without it it makes no sense to introduce a rule for one arbitrarily-defined group of road-users rather than other, any more than a rule saying you must have insurance if you ride a red-coloured vehicle but not if its green "why would you need to consider green-coloured vehicles when deciding whether to have compulsory insurance for red-coloured ones?)
It's my recovery week.
Sorry was they me, I've only read the 30 most recent posts. I thought I was supporting your point.
Most cyclists do have insurance, including your 8year old (if you have household contents insurance) and even if they don't they are very, very unlikely to cause an accident which results in a claim being made against them.
This. Somehow, some drivers seem to have this notion that it's perfectly acceptable not to leave a sufficient safety distance to the road user in front. They are habitually breaking the law and putting others at risk, and then are offended if you point it out to them.
IMHO the most likely explanation is that it's actually "Mr Penishead Cockfacedcunt" himself. After calming down somewhat he must have realised that pulling that kind of stunt with his company name written in nice big letters on his car in front of a camera wasn't the smartest thing he'd ever done, and proceeded to google about it, found this thread, and figured he'd attempt some damage control by trying to convince everyone that this wasn't Mark because "Mark had hair some years ago". Over the course of the next 48 hours this certainly morphed into a hopeless attempt at trolling seeing how he wasn't getting anywhere.
This doesn't mean that he shouldn't expect to have his views challenged - it also doesn't mean that he couldn't possibly learn something from the experience.
Oh look, I got an email too, just now:
You're certainly in the wrong room
the mind shift people go thru is power.
as soon as you give someone a motor they are more powerful, and some people want to exert that power.
examples:
car driver is annoyed and cyclists slowing them down, they are impeding their power.
truck drivers bully car drivers and everyone else because they are biggest.
busses push out in front of cars and taxis.
tax drivers have more experience and are bigger than a lot of cars to push in front of them.
a cyclist gets on a bike and is faster than a pedestrian, sometimes they exert that power over them and shout at stupid pedestrians crossing the road or being idots
.. so, i think, generally speaking, its a food chain thing, everyone wants to give s**t to the weaker person below them! its not right, but generally its true
No. No it isn't.
Isn't it usually going by the amount of danger posed / damaged caused? Don't the monies you have to pay for your insurance go up if you cause an accident? How much damage is caused by cars each year? Now, and how much by bicycles? By horses? By shoes (including Dr Martens)?
I may be wrong, but isn't that how we ended up with mandatory insurance for motorised vehicles and no mandatory insurance for non-motorised ones? Seems a pretty consistent approach to me.
Ok, For this one I will bite......
Perhaps where you are the world revolves around you....
Perhaps you are so narcissistic that you think your opinion is the only one that actually matters?
considering I was sent that email (but have decided not to put the email address it was sent from because I felt perhaps that would not be a nice thing to do) and i know that is the truth It will give me a real indication of the sort of people I am speaking to to find out if someone is willing to hold up their hand to sending it.
If they do then I am happy to meet some human beings, if they decide not to then I sense I will need to go elsewhere for intellect coupled with honesty and integrity.
Or in simple terms - it was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the person who sent the mail who clearly has had some interaction with this thread hence sending me the link.
So, it's none of your business you petty and argumentative excuse for a human being - It would be appreciated if your keyboard warrior skills were pitted against someone who has a similar iq to you, I hear the teletubbies are returning perhaps that might be a good start?
If i want your opinion in the future, I shall give it to you.
Sense, this makes none.
I'd just like to pick up on one thing:
Less than a tractor, or another car. And it's irrelevant anyway, because you should be overtaking even a single bike as if it were a car -- right over the other side of the road, plenty of space. Not squeezing past in the face on oncoming traffic as often happens. Locally I seem to experience a normal distribution of overtaking distances -- about 1 in 10 is too close, 1 in 10 is completely in the opposite carriageway, the rest are spread somewhere in between. And of course you get the occasional nugget who, for (real) example, both passes too close, in the face of oncoming traffic, and either forgets or doesn't care that he's towing a trailer that's wider than his car.
Oh, you 'sense' that you're the kind of guy I would like to go have a beer with after he passed me way too closely because it's 'not practical' to drive safely? Fun!
On any given city road with lots of traffic, I'll usually be faster on my bike than you will be in your car. Most of the time it will be entirely pointless for you to overtake me - you'll just end up at the back of a queue a few seconds earlier than me, where I will inevitably be rolling past you again.
Ah, the good old "get off my roads" line. Nice.
No, it means that drivers have to learn how to share.
No, the reality is that your 'opinion' is a load of self-entitled bullshit.
Seriously, you're one of the most persistent trolls I've seen on here.
Chapeau!
Wow this is still going?
Ok i've not got the energy to read all the post made since my last one in full but this one caught my eye
srchar, we may well know each other
especially if you know what what happening at Dunsfold today and tomorrow ....
I'm not expecting to change anyones mind on here, but i do expect to hear opinions that differ from my own so i can add those to my cerebral database and draw on them.
In legal terms there's nothing new but in terms of opinions i have learnt...
)
Having said that, i am concerned that i'm being accused either of being the person in the video or a simple troll (or an idiot - which sadly seems to be the least insulting of the 3
I still feel you guys are not getting my actual point of view... as you've said above - people are debunking what they think are my theories. The reason i keep coming back to it is that I don't think they get what my actual point is... either because they are misreading my posts or more likely that i'm not putting it well.
so.........
i'm not saying things shouldn't change, i'm not saying car drivers are saints and cyclists are sinners i'm just saying that it's dangerous out there, cyclists are the most vulnerable and most other road users are unaware of their responsibilities in light of that.
Therefore in my opinion (and i reiterate this being the status quo I perceive which i do not feel is fair but is a reality in my view) cyclists have to understand that the burden of responsibility for their safety falls upon their own shoulders and that cyclists cannot rely on the law, cannot count on drivers to suddenly become cyclist aware and cyclists as the vulnerable should take on the mindset that being in the right does not keep you safe.
You may feel the last point is redundant but for me, that is the one that a lot of cyclists don't take on board and for me that is the scariest thing.
That's my view of how things are now.... it's taken me this long to say it in such clear terms so i'm sorry about that but perhaps not responding to specific accusations makes it easier to put a point across.... or maybe it doesn't let's see......
No kidding.
Firstly, I am astonished that this thread is still going on. As I said before, I got bored with the deeply unpleasant nature of the posts from some of the contributors on here. You are an embarrassment to the majority of the cycling community.
Harry_J, I don't understand why you have stayed on so long. It seems to me that you have tried to engage in a philosophical debate about cycling safety which is separate from the original issue about the standard of driving displayed by Mark Angliss. Unfortunately you are debating with people who are incapable of understanding that and thus respond with abuse - much in the way that many testosterone fuelled drivers do when challenged about their driving standards. Forums such as this are the wrong place to have that sort of debate as they are inhabited by people who have a fixed viewpoint and won't explore anything outside of that. I'd be happy to have that debate over a pint. but that ain't gonna happen.
Secondly, it was I who invited you to view this video. I similarly invited as many of Mark's contacts as I could find from my sleuthing, as I am sure some of those would definitely not want to be associated with such behaviour. I actually thought that you would be the least likely to engage given the nature of your business, but bravo to you for doing so. All I can say is, surely you must have better things to do. I did receive replies from others that Mark claims to be involved with and perhaps the knock-on effect will cause him to rethink his behaviour in future.
I'm aware that I'm sticking me neck out here as I'm probably traceable and so could attract repercussions from either Mark (Mr Penishead) or some of the idiots on this forum for being too kind to you. But hey, I think I've taken the right stance ... and its a common name.
Now I really do think this thread has run its course.
Bye
Harry_J, no one here is saying that being in the right keeps you safe. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince of that because I'm not seeing anyone needing to be convinced there.
However, the trouble with your position as expressed in that paragraph there is that as a cyclist, you can ride as safely as you want and you can still get wiped out by an idiot who drives his or her car carelessly. Trust me when I say that an experienced bicycle commuter can pretty much be relied upon to do everything right. But that doesn't keep him or her safe from dangerous muppets like the one in the video.
You will notice that the cyclist in the video did everything right. He looked to his right hand side to ensure that he was clear for entering the roundabout. He even managed to brake in time for a road user that did everything wrong.
So, I'm not sure what you are suggesting for us to do, other than what most of us are already doing, i.e. riding defensively and in accordance with the rules of the road. We already understand that. But do you understand that that still doesn't protect us from dangerous drivers? What is your point here? Maybe you really are not putting it well.
Oh, I don't think so. Not while that nice Mr Harry J is trolling his rubbish and the likes of his acquaintance, Mr Mark (Penis Head) Angliss, are still lose on the road.
It's got a long way to go yet.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Andy, I wish you luck with the people on this forum.
You know the best thing about other peoples kids?
You can give them back.
Pages