Police caution for pratfall road-rage driver (+ video)

700c wrote:

Yes the driver was a tw@t and also a moron if he truly believed the sh1t he was coming out with - but imagine if you went through life arguing and confronting every individual who wronged you like that recording their every response?! you'd come a cropper sooner or later..

But that's a straw man argument. You could say any action is wrong by pointing out it would be bad to do that action constantly, all the time, every day of your life. So what?

Human beings, being what they are, occasionally decide not to meekly let things pass as they have done a hundred times before.

On balance, that's probably a good thing, as it helps keep the anti-social in check.
Imagine if people went through life never arguing and confronting any individual who wronged them. They'd probably not get treated very well.

We probably evolved the tendency to do that for a reason. We also probably evolved so we don't do it every time.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

If the cyclist hadn't followed the car and confronted the driver (quite reasonably considering the closeness of the pass) we would not have got the divine beauty of the scumbag hitting the deck and rolling over.

If it makes just one driver give cyclists more room it will be a major step forward for us all.

If you think running after somebody, confronting them and winding them up until they get out of the car to give chase is going to make a driver be considerate or give cyclists more room then you're crazy.

I may not subscribe to the 'it gives all cyclists a bad name' but it did absolutely nothing to further our cause or promote our safety. If anything, it did the opposite.

But I'm glad you enjoyed the clip. And let's be honest, that was the whole point of putting it on youtube wasn't it? To laugh at the guy hurting himself.

700c wrote:

it did absolutely nothing to further our cause

I've got no idea how this was portrayed in the tabloids but the narrative is there of a close pass, a barney, idiotic buffoon rolling onto the pavement, and the police cautioning the idiot clown driver. I think that actually does help "us" in our ongoing climb into being seen as normal and having close passes seen as nutty outsider moves.

700c wrote:

If you think running after somebody, confronting them and winding them up until they get out of the car to give chase is going to make a driver be considerate or give cyclists more room then you're crazy.

Given that we're talking about someone who had already passed dangerously close to a cyclist just because he was taking up 'too much' space on the road, I think we can assume that he's already an absolute dickhead, rather than a considerate driver who would give cyclists room.

700c wrote:

I may not subscribe to the 'it gives all cyclists a bad name' but it did absolutely nothing to further our cause or promote our safety. If anything, it did the opposite.

No, it didn't. See the headline. No way would the boiling pot of rage have landed in trouble had he not chased after the rider. It reinforces the fact that cyclists do have a right to a lane and disseminates it to a wide audience. Helps a heck of a lot more than letting them go because you've gotten rule #5 down and you can handle punishment passes, so it's more expedient for you to just bury your head in the sand. If you think cyclists should be willing to risk their lives at drivers' convenience in exchange for the privilege of being allowed onto the roads, then I really think it's you who isn't "further[ing] our cause or promot[ing] our safety".

700c wrote:

But I'm glad you enjoyed the clip. And let's be honest, that was the whole point of putting it on youtube wasn't it? To laugh at the guy hurting himself.

On behalf of most of humanity, thanks! I on the other hand feel truly sad for those so humorless and uptight as to be unable to appreciate the sublime irony of a man ending up hurting himself while attempting to kick someone else off their bike.

Carton wrote:

No way would the boiling pot of rage have landed in trouble had he not chased after the rider.

He could have filmed the close pass and left it at that, had a quick chat perhaps then go to police. A caution won't mean much to this bloke but at least he got a talking to.

Carton wrote:

If you think cyclists should be willing to risk their lives at drivers' convenience in exchange for the privilege of being allowed onto the roads, then I really think it's you who isn't "further[ing] our cause or promot[ing] our safety".

Fortunately, I don't think that. And nowhere have I said that. Ever.

Carton wrote:

I on the other hand feel truly sad for those so humorless and uptight as to be unable to appreciate the sublime irony of a man ending up hurting himself while attempting to kick someone else off their bike.

I do too. As I said in my earlier comments, the clip was funny and there was some natural justice to it. That it wouldn't have come to this if the cyclist hadn't kept discoursing with this idiot, seems to be lost on you.

Only one of the two was violent.

The cyclist "legged it", when the driver said he was going to take his camera.

perfect1964 wrote:

It is very funny watching a fat shouty man take a tumble. But, really? What is it with some of you cyclist with cameras want to chase after idiots driving badly to confront them and wind them up?

I actually think both were as bad as each other. It's hardly any more dignified winding up someone and then legging it when you realise they've lost it and are about to lamp you. Stand there and trade a few. It's not like you weren't involved in creating the situation.

Its one thing mouthing off to someone, but anybody that resorts to trying to smash someone's face in is a fucking thug and deserves everything they get. I honestly think that ape of a driver has no place in society and if I was David Cameron I would ensure that he didn't have one.

perfect1964 wrote:

It's not like you weren't involved in creating the situation.

A very valid point. Yes he passed close in the first instance, but it was a narrow street Andy he cyclist went too far. Should have called him a tower and moved on.

He gives us all a bad name winding the prat up.

Shipley wrote:

perfect1964 wrote:

It's not like you weren't involved in creating the situation.

A very valid point. Yes he passed close in the first instance, but it was a narrow street Andy he cyclist went too far. Should have called him a tower and moved on.

He gives us all a bad name winding the prat up.

It was a punishment pass. He chose to endanger the cyclist's life because he felt that the cyclist had no right to take up so much room on the road.

Yeah, but the cyclist gives us all a bad name, uh-huh, bad cyclist - how dare you be indignant at having your life put at risk.

perfect1964 wrote:

I actually think both were as bad as each other.

Well then it's odd why they weren't both "cautioned by Thames Valley Police after committing a public order offence, assault, and making threats to commit criminal damage". Oh... no it's not.

Arguably, the chap on the bike's actions were not as 'perfect' as your username would have us believe yours would be, but he was not - by any stretch of the imagination - 'as bad as the other' guy. Please reread the list of cautions if in doubt.

Shipley wrote:

He gives us all a bad name winding the prat up.

No... he doesn't do that either. The fact he propels himself on two wheels does not make him some sort of 'blood brother' whose actions you are unquestionably answerable for. He's just a guy. Just like the guy in the car. Except - as stated - NOT like the guy in the car, on account of not "committing a public order offence, assault, and making threats to commit criminal damage". In that way he's quite different.

perfect1964 wrote:

I actually think both were as bad as each other.

And that tells us all we need to know about you.

perfect1964 wrote:

Stand there and trade a few. It's not like you weren't involved in creating the situation.

Whoops...no, we now also know that you advocate attacking people physically as a way of settling a dispute. AND ON THE INTERNETS TOO! You must have to get special, reinforced underpants to stop that pair smashing your knees?

perfect1964 wrote:

But, really? What is it with some of you cyclist with cameras

I know, recording assaults and driving that endangers life and limb, handing it over to the police, what are we like? Life would be much better if there was no witnesses to crimes, just think how empty the courts and prisons would be.

perfect1964 wrote:

confront them and wind them up?

The cyclists said in a fairly calm voice "Too close, mate, you passed me way too close". No shouting, no swearing. I can't see that this is offensive or aggressive. If this winds up the driver enough to launch a barrage of shouting, swearing and physical violence, you really can't blame the cyclist. Even during all the shouting, the cyclist never gets offensive, just quite assertive.

I've also sometimes stopped and told drivers "you were too close" - some actually have apologised. Most people are quite reasonable and often just don't realise how it feels for a cyclist, so I think it is important to tell them if you have a chance (calmly, friendly, and no swearing or shouting!).