Near Miss of the Day 251: White van man makes close pass on cyclists then goes ballistic (includes swearing)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Guardian has some left-wing comment in it, but it isn't 'left wing', it's centrist/liberal.  Liberals, almost by definition, tend to feel obliged to give space to other voices, hence it has leftists along with Tories on the staff.

 

It's distinctly pro-cycling compared to the rest of the media, though that's not saying much (the BBC is mostly anti-).

Jeremy Clarkson is 'distinctly pro-cycling' compared to much of the UK media.

That doesn't make him 'pro-cycling'.  

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

The second thing you should do is to remove your D-lock from your belt. 

By getting out of the vehicle, the driver has indicated his willingness to use force.   The offence of common assault is complete at that point.   You do not have to wait for him to hit you, before invoking your right to self defence. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

The second thing you should do is to remove your D-lock from your belt. 

By getting out of the vehicle, the driver has indicated his willingness to use force.   The offence of common assault is complete at that point.   You do not have to wait for him to hit you, before invoking your right to self defence. 

I'd assumed you carried around a paving slab on your rack...? 

brooksby wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

The second thing you should do is to remove your D-lock from your belt. 

By getting out of the vehicle, the driver has indicated his willingness to use force.   The offence of common assault is complete at that point.   You do not have to wait for him to hit you, before invoking your right to self defence. 

I'd assumed you carried around a paving slab on your rack...? 

*snort* 

You dull cunt.  

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

Depends on the aggressor I suppose. I some times think if you stay onboard you are seen as more vulnerable and less of a fair fight, reckon the police would see it this way too, you jumping off suggests you're ready for a bit of queensberry rules.

I did once have an altercation with a driver who folded himself out of a drug dealers Merc, he was about 8 feet... wide and probably a bit taller. Actually started rutting the ground with his foot. In full knowledge he'd kill me i didn't dismount. He also told me to take my shades off as (kind of him) he doesn't hit a blok in glasses, I asked him why I'd take them off then

alansmurphy wrote:

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

 

Depends on the aggressor I suppose. I some times think if you stay onboard you are seen as more vulnerable and less of a fair fight, reckon the police would see it this way too, you jumping off suggests you're ready for a bit of queensberry rules.

I believe that any driver who doesn't see a problem with pitting 1.5 tonnes of steel, glass and plastic against 100 kg of skin and bone, really doesn't give a flying fuck about any notions of 'fairness'.  

spen wrote:

The first thing you should do in a situation like that is get off your bike.  You're far less likely to be attacked if you show you're ready and able to cope with it.

This was my first thought too, but I guess staying on the bike subtly showed the villain that Andrew wasn't looking for a fight, one of many clever things he did to keep the situation from escalating.  Also, the fact that it was a group ride may have made the villain realise he was even more of a twat for stopping in the middle of the road.  He may have got the better of one cyclist, but the rest of them would have made sure any violence he resorted to would come back on him.

I often ride solo, but I won't let a close pass go without shouting at the car, and waving at the other side of the road.  I haven't recently had any car stop and have a go at me, but I would still do it.  I have noticed that other cars passing me after a close pass when I have shouted and gesticulated have given me an exaggerated amount more room.  Well, except one instance, when scumbag #2 got silly close. 

Some of my ride buddies think I am mad, I should just let it go and stay calm.  But that's giving in to the lazy drivers and the psycho drivers.  I don't understand those that can just shrug their shoulders and say this is what happens.

If you were out for a walk down a coutry road and a car passed you at 30 mph within 1 metre, you would go mental.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Also, the fact that it was a group ride may have made the villain realise he was even more of a twat for stopping in the middle of the road.  He may have got the better of one cyclist, but the rest of them would have made sure any violence he resorted to would come back on him.

You think? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKCDsBeGH4

I confess to being utterly bewildered that so many cyclists just stand there and let drivers hit them.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Also, the fact that it was a group ride may have made the villain realise he was even more of a twat for stopping in the middle of the road.  He may have got the better of one cyclist, but the rest of them would have made sure any violence he resorted to would come back on him.

You think? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKCDsBeGH4

I confess to being utterly bewildered that so many cyclists just stand there and let drivers hit them.

I thought it would be that one.

Although I did get a Brucie Bonus with the next video that popped up after

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BWw1M6x6O0&feature=youtu.be&t=113

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Classic entitlement complex.  Whenever I remonstrate with a driver, the response is almost always 'you were in my way' or 'you were holding me up'.

The right-wing media's witch hunt against cyclists and cycling has resulted in a significant percentage of the population believing in their hearts that when in a motor vehicle (or to a lesser extent, when on a motorcycle), they have 'priority' or 'precedence' over cyclists.  

Most drivers see cyclists not only as 'an obstacle' to their 'right' to drive as fast as they want, but also in many ways as recalcitrant children whom they not only have a right to punish, but a duty to do so.

When that sense of entitlement results in injuury to or death of a cyclist, the same mentality carries over to the magistrate's court or to the Crown Court, and the driver or motorcyclist can be almost certain of walking away without a single day spent in a cell.  

This is both an indictment of the principle of 'a free press', as well as prima facie proof that the justice system (whether it be at the hands of an unqualified magistrate or a jury of prejudiced thickos) is not fit for purpose.

Thank you.  The situation summed up in a few pithy sentences, but what can be done?  It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation.  As you point out, the institutional bias against cycling is widespread throughout society, at every level e.g. the recent conference about alternatives to the private car I recently attended in Bristol which totally ignored cycling and walking.  And they got quite upset when I pointed out their error.

burtthebike wrote:

It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation. 

Far too much of it does, not the entirety.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation. 

Far too much of it does, not the entirety.

I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?  There are plenty of niche media which do, but msm?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation. 

Far too much of it does, not the entirety.

I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?  There are plenty of niche media which do, but msm?

In the UK, off top of my head would be The Guardian - hey, even the Beeb has it's moments but I know how you feel about them

Edit : don't get me wrong, there isn't a red top that i've wipe my arse with, can't think of a single one with balance on any subject.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

It would appear that the entire msm is happy to attack cyclists to pander to their readers/viewers, and are happy to present cycling as incredibly dangerous and lacking in any virtues, a complete misrepresentation of the situation. 

Far too much of it does, not the entirety.

I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?  There are plenty of niche media which do, but msm?

In the UK, off top of my head would be The Guardian - hey, even the Beeb has it's moments but I know how you feel about them

I'm always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or - as here - pro-cycling.   It's corporate media, just the same as the Daily Mail.  The only thing that separates them is that the Gaurdian hates white, heterosexual Jewish men, and the Daily Mail loves Israel because its destruction is supposed to usher in the 'end of days'.

Anyway, this might clear up your confusion…

https://medium.com/@lastwheel/why-does-the-guardian-hate-cycling-6125b13...

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

 

I'm always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or - as here - pro-cycling. 

I didn't say it was pro-cycling.

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

 

I'm always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or - as here - pro-cycling. 

I didn't say it was pro-cycling.

Okay dokey.  Since your comment seemed (please do correct me if I'm wrong) to be in response to: 

'I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?' 

.. then my comment stands.  No, it doesn't 'present cycling in a fair, balanced manner'. 

It's like every other part of the corporate media.  Any 'positive' look at cycling always has to be countered with the seemingly mandatory caveat along the lines of 'Now .. don't get me wrong.  Many cyclists seem to have scant regard for the rules of the road...'

Maybe not those exact words.  But something similar will be there in most cases.  It's the 'I'm not racist, BUT………' phenomenon. 

And the reason for this is that just like the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Standard… they depend on advertising to keep themselves in a job.  And a lot of that advertising comes from the car industry and the Road Haulage Association.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

 

I'm always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or - as here - pro-cycling. 

I didn't say it was pro-cycling.

Okay dokey.  Since your comment seemed (please do correct me if I'm wrong) to be in response to: 

'I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?' 

.. then my comment stands.  No, it doesn't 'present cycling in a fair, balanced manner'. 

Your comment was 'as here - pro-cycling', that is not the same as 'what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?' 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm intrigued, what msm currently presents cycling in a fair, balanced manner?  There are plenty of niche media which do, but msm?

In the UK, off top of my head would be The Guardian - hey, even the Beeb has it's moments but I know how you feel about them

[/quote]

I'm always intrigued by the number of people who think that the Guardian is left-wing, progressive or - as here - pro-cycling.   It's corporate media, just the same as the Daily Mail.  The only thing that separates them is that the Gaurdian hates white, heterosexual Jewish men, and the Daily Mail loves Israel because its destruction is supposed to usher in the 'end of days'.

Anyway, this might clear up your confusion…

https://medium.com/@lastwheel/why-does-the-guardian-hate-cycling-6125b13...

[/quote]

Well, the Guardian is conclusively proved not to represent cycling fairly, in a balanced manner, so that leaves the BBC, which is in my experience, so totally biased that it could well be up there with the DM.  Not so overtly biased perhaps, but it has had thousands of articles about obesity, pollution, health, global warming, congestion, pollution, but it never mentions that cycling is the most effective way of treating all those problems.  There are two ways to lie; commission and omission.  The BBC lies by omission.  And don't start me on their 30 year helmet campaign.

burtthebike wrote:

Well, the Guardian is conclusively proved not to represent cycling fairly, in a balanced manner, so that leaves the BBC, which is in my experience, so totally biased that it could well be up there with the DM.  Not so overtly biased perhaps, but it has had thousands of articles about obesity, pollution, health, global warming, congestion, pollution, but it never mentions that cycling is the most effective way of treating all those problems.  There are two ways to lie; commission and omission.  The BBC lies by omission.  And don't start me on their 30 year helmet campaign.

The BBC is the British state broadcaster.

Did you really expect it to peddle any line but that of the neoliberal British establishment?

burtthebike wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Classic entitlement complex.  Whenever I remonstrate with a driver, the response is almost always 'you were in my way' or 'you were holding me up'.

The right-wing media's witch hunt against cyclists and cycling has resulted in a significant percentage of the population believing in their hearts that when in a motor vehicle (or to a lesser extent, when on a motorcycle), they have 'priority' or 'precedence' over cyclists.  

Most drivers see cyclists not only as 'an obstacle' to their 'right' to drive as fast as they want, but also in many ways as recalcitrant children whom they not only have a right to punish, but a duty to do so.

When that sense of entitlement results in injuury to or death of a cyclist, the same mentality carries over to the magistrate's court or to the Crown Court, and the driver or motorcyclist can be almost certain of walking away without a single day spent in a cell.  

This is both an indictment of the principle of 'a free press', as well as prima facie proof that the justice system (whether it be at the hands of an unqualified magistrate or a jury of prejudiced thickos) is not fit for purpose.

Thank you.  The situation summed up in a few pithy sentences, but what can be done?

Legally?  Nothing.   We have now passed the stage where peaceful protest, or 'asking nicely' will work.   Unfortunately, violence is now the only answer. 

I'm willing to go to prison, but I'm fucked if I'm doing it alone.