Foul-mouthed anti-cyclist rant from farmers' Facebook group goes viral

You forgot the classic - "ah, but the cyclists cause the 'accidents' (and they wouldn't be hurt if they weren't on a toy vehicle)"

You are totally mistaken.

In these situations the problems are caused entirely by the self-entitled tractor drivers who don't care that their dangerous driving can kill and injure other people. They are the only individual that can cause any danger in this situation and should slow down to a safe speed when passing cyclists. 

Cyclists simply do not play chicken with tractors and such... and even IF they did, it is the driver's responsibility to drive safely. It's clearly never going to be the cyclist(s) that will be taking up 3/4 of the width of the road forcing the tractor into the ditch to avoid a collision.

Only one of these two parties is a criminal threatening to murder the other. That's why your analysis is completely wrong.

Did you actually read what I said instead of jumping to the conclusion that you wanted? My post pointed out that it was certain individuals who caused problems - one being inconsiderate tractor drivers. Get your facts right - a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, someone who has a desire to commit a crime but has not committed one is not a criminal. As someone who has driven farm vehicles on road and is also a cyclist, your simplified blanket assertions don't help to foster good relations between various road users, which is an objective that we should all be striving for.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but these 'good relations' between various road users can't be fostered when one group of road users is threatening the other with violence if the other don't simply bow out of the way and secede.

The farmers in this instance are not asking for courtesy, they are threatening physical harm if others are not subservient to them.

There is zero point saying things on this forum, that is usually populated by people who ride bicycles, asking for courtesy when we are raising the issue of actual risk of violence towards us.

Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse - still illegal.

Share the roadocean...

Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse - still illegal

Not really, in Lancashire anyway. A BMW driver close-passed me and was then stopped by temporary lights- I remonstrated with him (no swearing by me), and he threatened to "fucking flatten" me, and declared that I would get "knocked off". I had video and audio of the entire incident, but it took 3 persistent months working against Lancashire Constabulary indolence and indifference to achieve the negligible result of 'words of advice'

You've of course hit the nail on the head that the problem is lack of enforcement. Little Johnny is not going to stop his bullying and misbehaving if he keeps just getting 'final warnings' and angry little demerit stickers.

And your solution is what? I don't accept that all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence. There may be a few rotten applies, and if possible, cam footage should be used to deal with those individuals. Otherwise, cyclists should show courtesy and consideration, which helps to foster good relations.

JimM777 wrote:

And your solution is what? I don't accept that all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence. There may be a few rotten applies, and if possible, cam footage should be used to deal with those individuals. Otherwise, cyclists should show courtesy and consideration, which helps to foster good relations.

Admit it - you work for the Met, don't you?

This is exhausting. We are not talking about 'all tractor drivers.' We are talking about the ones who have made a post threatening to hurt other road users. My point is that this abusive and threatening post is the problem and should be treated seriously. I am not legally minded so don't have a legal solution and, as wjts was correct in pointing out, while illegal, this kind of threatening language goes unenforced anyway, cameras or not.

I know what the solution is NOT - that vulnerable road users simply act as polite and genteel as possible while a potentially agressive road user capable of killing us dominates the road. This is not 'courtesy and consideration.' It is subservience.

Please don't patronise me by saying that my courteous behaviour is somehow going to save me from deadly encounters - I've been knocked off my bicycle thrice in one year and am (admittedly, by my own account, but happy to be observed and corrected) a careful and considerate cyclist.

What's the solution?  Dunno what vthejk's one is but mine would look a bit like this.

I don't think all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence - or even most. However if the average person feels in fear of their life even a few times while going to a certain place / engaging in a certain activity they will just avoid that area or stop the activity.

The tractor driver isn't going to stop driving there - but then that's the difference between irritation (which often says as much about your individual character) or inconvenience and fear (some things frighten everyone).

We should be pragmatic of course.  I doubt that many people are campaigning for cycle access through every farm yard. Currently though the vast majority of places are in practice inaccessible to most people by cycling.  That's part of why most people don't cycle.

"Good relations" - well, yes, but to be blunt "good relations" require relationships.  That takes repeated encounters between the same people and mutual regard.  Or people identifying with the other party's "group" - not likely if you, your parents, children and friends don't cycle.  It's also harder to establish where people with fundamentally different requirements / needs are using the same resource.  I'd rather safety and convenience were built in (with a design that doesn't rely on the motorist getting it right) - I think that's more likely to allow good relations to develop because it's obvious what each party should be doing.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I don't think all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence - or even most. However if the average person feels in fear of their life even a few times while going to a certain place / engaging in a certain activity they will just avoid that area or stop the activity.

This is something else I was trying to say but couldn't articulate. So reminiscent of the 'not all men' argument against rapists isn't it? I couldn't care less if the tractor driver behind me is a murdering maniac but the possibility that they exist and can be murdering maniacs is enough to make my experience fearful/uncomfortable.

.

Balance. Sense. I'm afraid that you are not going to do too well on here, Jim.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Balance. Sense. I'm afraid that you are not going to do too well on here, Jim.

.

Coming from you that's truly comical!

I guess you anti-cyclists and the trolls need to stick together when you're outnumbered and outflanked.

But all road users should show courtesy and consideration, not just the vulnerable ones.

Thing is, and this is often seemingly forgotten when excusing "a few rotten applies", if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

ktache wrote:

Thing is, and this is often seemingly forgotten when excusing "a few rotten applies", if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

Very true, and equally if you get poisoned by a rotten apple it's not much consolation to know that you were unlucky to draw one of the few in the barrel.

Analogies can be fine and dandy, but can also be very misleading. Do the majority of people who see someone doing dangerous driving then proceed to start driving dangerously? If that were so, by now there shouldn't be any non dangerous drivers left.

In any case, you're never going to create a perfect group of humans by removing certain individuals, there's always going to be be another rotten one to take their place.

That said, if a dangerous driver can be brought to account, of course, he should be, and appropriate action taken against him.

if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

How true!

JimM777 wrote:

Get your facts right - a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, someone who has a desire to commit a crime but has not committed one is not a criminal. 

I'm sure plenty of people in prison for planning to commit acts of terrorism or bank robberies but not carrying them out would be very interested in your legal advice. Planning a crime or threatening to commit one can very definitely be a criminal offence.

Why are you twisting my words? I referred to a desire to commit a crime, and yes, I claim that that is not a crime (except in fiction such as Minority Report)

I wrote that in response to someone who posted "One party is a criminal threatening to murder the other", which I considered unhelpful inflammatory hyperbole and which had no evidence to support it. Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you") are never accepted on their own as evidence of actual intent.

JimM777 wrote:

Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you") are never accepted on their own as evidence of actual intent.

Still a criminal offence I'm afraid, comes under the heading of causing fear or provocation of violence (threatening behaviour) under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986).

You conveniently left out the bit that requires the offending act to cause the other person to believe that "immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

JimM777 wrote:

You conveniently left out the bit that requires the offending act to cause the other person to believe that "immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

I was responding to the example you gave, "Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you")". Or don't you think when someone says "I'm gonna kill you" to another person that person wouldn't think they were threatening violence?