"I don't need petrol, because I'm on a bike," Cyclist mocks panic buying drivers; "I was in the same way as Pantani", Jan Ullrich talks addiction and reunites with Lance Armstrong; Cycling campaign group called 'destructive' + more on the live blog...

It does seem a bit pointless.   I suspect a good chunk of the cyclists who were at the Drgon Ride Sportive this weekend had some butt clenching moments looking for fuel.  I know I did, and that was for something a million miles away from life and death.

Its not just the average bike hating motorist affected either. Ambulances, good vehicles etc etc. 

Yes you're quite right, a substantial proportion of motorists probably would react violently to a harmless – if puerile and painfully tuneless – bit of mickey taking from a cyclist, and presumably you would cheer them on, as is your wont. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Yes you're quite right, a substantial proportion of motorists probably would react violently to a harmless – if puerile and painfully tuneless – bit of mickey taking from a cyclist, and presumably you would cheer them on, as is your wont. 

Weve already seen fights breaking out at the pumps - Of course this means that some motorists are prone to violence, they're just looking for a victim.

Love radio 4s reporting this morning, that the violence was due to frustration. Nothing to do with some individuals being unable to keep their fists to themselves.....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Oh give over, it was just a joke. If you'd understood any of my 654 posts you'd know that I only approve of courteous behaviour, which is why I disagree with your modus operandi.

Which is why just yesterday you were seeking, without any evidence, to put forward mitigation for an adult male who attacked a child on a bike. You consistently defend violent and aggressive behaviour by motorists towards cyclists and try to cover it up with a pathetic veneer of "Oh but I'm so courteous."

Most people don't view violence against cyclists as a suitable matter for joking.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Er no, I actually said "Think there is more to this, given the ages of the people involved, than simply someone being assaulted for riding on the pavement. According to the local newspaper there was a group of people who were looking after the upkeep of the park but were constantly under attack from vandals."

My point is that would be a very unusual incident for a 72 year old man to assault a 14 year old for cycling on the pavement. Not least because most 72 year olds wouldn't be able to just drag a 14 year old off a bike and attack them, nor would want to as typically they would come off second best.

You can read the reports of vandalism at the pond where people of a similar age had put in a lot of effort to increase the biodiversity of the area but had been constantly thwarted.

So what you are saying by your inference is that the 14 year old cycling in the park is a vandal because they were on a bike in an area with a history of vandalism.  And attempting to vindicate the perpetrator of the assault because the cyclist is a vandal without any evidence of that.  You did not do an analysis...... you automatically assumed that a teenager on a bike was up to no good.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

No, I wrote that the balance of evidence would suggest something was afoot due to the ages of the individuals involved, and that vandalism might be an aggravating factor.

"The balance of evidence" being a total speculation on your part based on the ages of the charged perpetrator of violence and his victim and something you'd read online about there being vandalism in the area, despite the fact that no connection has been drawn between these things by anybody but yourself; you then used this "evidence" to suggest that there could be mitigation for an adult inflicting violence against a child (an action for which, lest we forget, he has been arrested and charged). You know, and we know, that if the positions were reversed and a 14-year-old cyclist had attacked a 72-year-old man you would have been all on the side of the victim and not the assailant, as all you are ever interested in is blaming cyclists for everything possible. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Sometimes you just need to use a bit of common sense to reach a sensible point of view

Yeah...banging on about labradors woofing sausages before guinea pigs to justify your supposition - without, again, a shred of supporting evidence - that an adult was justified in inflicting violence on a child and claiming that no further action will be taken despite the perpetrator being arrested and charged doesn't fall within the remit of what most people understand to be common sense.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well now you're just being ridiculous and reductive. By your logic, leaving a plate of sausages in front of a hungry labrador and a guinea pig - then coming back to find them gone - deducing the labrador (rather than the guinea pig) had eaten them would be "total speculation".

Sometimes you just need to use a bit of common sense to reach a sensible point of view, and I'm happy I've done so in this case. I'm assuming we'll find out more information in due course, so happy to be corrected if a more unlikely scenario came to pass - but my guess is that no further action will be taken.

You are also being ridiculous and reductive.

I have a couple of alternative hypotheses given the available evidence.  The teenage cyclist spotted the 72 year old man committing acts of vandalism and asked the pensioner to stop and they were attacked for asking the penisoner to stop vandalising something.  

Another possibility based on the article you linked is that the kayakers who have been been singled out by the volunteer group are the ones perpetrating the vandalism. 

To quote the article.  "The volunteer group’s work – including bringing fresh water back into the pond – has suffered multiple setbacks including numerous incidents of vandalism and increasing conflict with local kayakers who have repeatedly flouted long-standing rules banning them from going out on the pond."  The kayakers have a motive to commit acts of vandalism in retribution.

Is it not entirely possible that the pensioner jumped to the same conclusions that you have?  They viewed the  vandalism as being perpetrated by teenagers, then decided to randomly attack a teenager because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

And before you say that kind of thing never happens.... it does to a lot of cyclists just because they are cycling on the road and some psycho in a car who has seen another cyclist do something wrong decides to close pass/throw something/drive at an innocent cyclist.

Oh Nige, it wasn't a joke and everyone here who knows you knows it wasn't a joke.  and "If you'd understood any of my 654 posts"?

We do understand your 654 posts.  You always try to find some way that the cyclist could possibly be to blame in any situation.  I'm pretty confident that if I was to look at every single one of your posts on here that you would be blaming the cyclist/absolving the motorist in virtually every post. 

You also try and proclaim that you are better than everyone else in the posts by saying you would do this that or the other and would never find yourself in that position as a cyclist...... then turn round in the same post admit that whilst you are in your car you flagrantly break the laws of the road.... or have you conveniently forgot about the admission that you dont use mini roundabouts correctly because most other people dont?  

Your third para is wrong. That was nicmason.

Best to skip over what nigel writes though.

I

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If you keep going and strike through the other paragraphs, your post would be 100% correct

Presumably this is another attempt by Nigel at a ‘joke’,

TBF to Boo, he does occaisially post some bike related good advice. But that still leave a good majority of his posts being trolling efforts to get responses which unfortunately too many do. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Yes you're quite right, a substantial proportion of motorists probably would react violently to a harmless – if puerile and painfully tuneless – bit of mickey taking from a cyclist, and presumably you would cheer them on, as is your wont. 

The irony is, of course, that the ambulance with which the petrol-scented gammons goad the cyclist will never get there because they are too busy trying to find petrol stations that haven't been supped dry by panick-buying motorists.

GMBasix wrote:

...petrol-scented gammons...

Is that one of this Christmas' Heston creations?

'Helmet' jokes loading....

10, 9, 8...

Oldfatgit wrote:

"the gains in active travel made during the pandemic could soon be squandered" Thanks, now I've got coffee everywhere.

Somebody needs to let Labour know that that particular ship sailed a loooong time ago...

Better half drove us to my mother's on the south coast today, (new car to her, another little very efficient one, my yearly car trip) seemed to be less racing up to queues and less fast lane speeding, or that could be the quantity of speed cameras.

Yes! Someone got there first - see forum topic "Own up then, who was it?"