Live blog: Edinburgh primary school bike bus; Peter Sagan in bizarre relay race; chauffeur in road rage incident says his manoeuvre "was perfectly safe" + more

Pushing50 wrote:

"I didn't pull in front of you", "it's on camera"!

Sorry mate but if I employed you as my chauffeur*, you would be looking for another job due to lack of integrity, honesty and for allowing my vehicle to be damaged to the tune of £1500 because of your idiocy.

I have seen the footage. You did not adhere to the traffic regulations at that junction and proceeded to engage in a totally avoidable altercation with someone who looked at you. You also then DID deliberatly pull directly in front of the cyclist who YOU antagonised and therefore YOU are reponsible for the outcome.

Here is your P45, now go and work for someone who is happy for you to put their family at risk whilst you are driving them around town.

*Assuming that this is a personal hired chauffuer

Mini cab driver, in my experiance hardly professional and the majority fall far below the driving standards of black cab drivers in London.  Although sometimes that is not a vey high bar.

As well as the paperwork and lanugage tests perhaps TFL should make them pass an advanced driving test?

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I found the longer version others have mentioned, which is misrepresented by the headline in the London Evening Standard.

...

When the chauffeur acts like the police and pulls him over by blocking him into the kerb, and saying 'you're in trouble now' several times, I suggest that's a threat, not the behaviour of an innocent victim of road rage.

...

Even before it gets that far it's clear the driver wants an argument, he rolls down his window and starts shouting accusations at the cyclist. . .  and on a par when everyone I've ever had a "discussion" with about their driving style, he KNOWS he was in the wrong, because he simply refuses to allow the cyclist to say more than 3 words before interrupting him again.

Ever had that discussion that starts with "Why don't you use the cycle lane ?" (In this case a shared use, narrow, down a hill under a roundabout, pick an arm in the centre while trying to peer through the concrete walls, and back up the hill on the other side . . . followed by "you cause queues by not using that cycle lane" . .  having pointed out I actually follow the road at the same speed as the other traffic (owing to the give way lines etc) I then get the "You ride through the roundabout too fast, doing 40-60km/h"

StuInNorway wrote:

Ever had that discussion that starts with "Why don't you use the cycle lane ?"

never really a discussion though, is it? Which is why in my experience if you respond at all the only correct response is “why don’t you fuck off?”

alansmurphy wrote:

Well that's a ridiculous first post.

 

There's a couple of key points to me - rarely does a cyclists mistake lead to an innocent party losing their life. Secondly, it's apparent who was in the wrong, the taxi driver was deliberately using the wrong lane to not sit behind a right turning lorry, he said so himself.

 

Well played on the "I'm a cyclist" bit though...

Well, thanks - you're clearly a nice, amiable chap.

ridiculouscyclist wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Well that's a ridiculous first post.

 

There's a couple of key points to me - rarely does a cyclists mistake lead to an innocent party losing their life. Secondly, it's apparent who was in the wrong, the taxi driver was deliberately using the wrong lane to not sit behind a right turning lorry, he said so himself.

 

Well played on the "I'm a cyclist" bit though...

 

Well, thanks - you're clearly a nice, amiable chap.

He has his moments.

ridiculouscyclist wrote:

Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he's a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they're all dangerous idiots. It's a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.

 

I think that driver was obviously wrong for driving straight on from a "left-only" lane and then using his vehicle to block in the cyclist. The cyclist didn't react well, but it's very easy to over-react when idiots are putting your life at risk with their idiotic driving.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ridiculouscyclist wrote:

Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he's a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they're all dangerous idiots. It's a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.

 

I think that driver was obviously wrong for driving straight on from a "left-only" lane and then using his vehicle to block in the cyclist. The cyclist didn't react well, but it's very easy to over-react when idiots are putting your life at risk with their idiotic driving.

On the one hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by the incorrect and intimidating use of their car. On the other hand you have someone making another human feel threatened by throwing a bike against the car and through wagging their finger.

Stacking those threats up against each other, the cyclist under-reacted. The driver needs to grow a pair and be thankful he wasn't twatted.

ridiculouscyclist wrote:

Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he's a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they're all dangerous idiots. It's a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.

 

In this case though... the driver has admitted to driving improperly... because he judged it was safe to do so. Rules are put in place because people are clearly incapable (by constant demonstration) of making effective judgements themselves. 

The cyclist does indeed do himself no favours however... these situations never end well, so why bother engaging with these idiots? The only time to do so is when you are certain you can stay calm and rational... which is very rarely (never) in the hear of the moment. 

ridiculouscyclist wrote:

Many comments on this and linked posts follow the maxim that the cyclist is always right because he's a cyclist right?, and the driver is obviously always wrong because they're all dangerous idiots. It's a very blinkered way of looking at things. As a regular cyclist around London I see moronic cyclists who shame the rest of us (and yes, moronic motorists also). I suspect only a couple of people know the facts about who was in the wrong in this case. The cyclist, however, has done himself no favours at all in deciding to commit criminal damage to get his point across.

 

Get some T-Cut, I’m sure the scratch in the bonnet will buff out.

don simon wrote:

"It was perfectly safe", sorry matey, but It's not your call.

Ah, but you are forgetting, he's a professional driver....

As for the cyclist, I would have used the other side of the wheel, save damaging the rear mech.

MarkiMark wrote:

Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I'm with the driver.

So you think the rules don’t apply? Awesome.

”It was perfectly safe” is the driving equivalent of “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye”.

vonhelmet wrote:

MarkiMark wrote:

Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I'm with the driver.

So you think the rules don’t apply? Awesome.

”It was perfectly safe” is the driving equivalent of “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye”.

In all fairness, it doesn't say that the chauffeur said it was perfectly safe for the cyclist... 

MarkiMark wrote:

Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I'm with the driver.

If you watch the longer version of the vid,  you can see the driver drifting left towards a parked white van, presumably cutting off the cyclist who he is still driving along next to having a chat.

MarkiMark wrote:

Sorry, based on this limited evidence, I'm with the driver.

"limited evidence" is the problem.

The driver has released an edited video which only shows what happens after the traffic starts moving at the lights. The cyclist is clearly already annoyed - but we're not allowed to see what the driver did to upset him.
Instead we get the driver going straight on in a left only lane then pulling alongside the cyclist and berating him before overtaking and pulling in to block him. Why? Up to the point the cyclist had done nothing wrong, yet the driver feels the need to drive alongside and lecture him and when that doesn't work stop him to complete the lecture.

The driver knew he's done something wrong, but he won't let us see what it was.