So who is in the wrong here?

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:47 pm

"This is the moment an angry cyclist kicks out at a passing car for getting to close - but viewers were divided over who was in the wrong.
The incident happened last Wednesday June 26, at around 7pm on Kings Avenue in Brixton, south London and was caught on film by a driving instructor's dash cam.
The instructor, who wishes to remain anonymous, posted the footage online and said: 'Who's side are you on?'"

There is a video on the link.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7223669/Cyclists-lash-Peugeot-think-driver-got-close-tried-overtake.html

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:49 pm

I gave up cycling a few years ago because of idiotic drivers.
When in a car I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on the road.

In the video I would actually say the cyclists were in the right to be peed off.

by Guest Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:52 pm

Syl wrote:I gave up cycling a few years ago because of idiotic drivers.
When in a car I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on the road.

In the video I would actually say the cyclists were in the right to be peed off.

Cyclists are always at fault

They have no insurance and don't pay road tax, nothing they do can be right until those two criteria are met

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:02 pm

The cyclists shouldn't have tried to overtake the car on the left. They put themselves in danger.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:11 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:I gave up cycling a few years ago because of idiotic drivers.
When in a car I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on the road.

In the video I would actually say the cyclists were in the right to be peed off.

Cyclists are always at fault

They have no insurance and don't pay road tax, nothing they do can be right until those two criteria are met

They have legal rights whether you like it or not.

by Original Quill Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:The cyclists shouldn't have tried to overtake the car on the left. They put themselves in danger.

I agree. San Francisco is a big cyclist city...particularly in the north Bay. (I have three bikes of my own.) Very often bicyclists see themselves as 'David' in a 'David and Goliath' competition. Assuming underdog status makes them feel victimized and entitled. They can't take an objective view.

BTW, where is the bicycle lane in this city? That does not happen in California...particularly on a road with that much traffic.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:22 pm

I dont think the cyclists were totally innocent, but had the car hurt one of them, he (the driver) would have been at fault imo. He definately drove too near the cyclists for safety.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:24 pm

Syl wrote:I dont think the cyclists were totally innocent, but had the car hurt one of them, he (the driver) would have been at fault imo. He definately drove too near the cyclists for safety.

They cycled too near the driver. They should have stayed behind the car. Also, kicking the car could have caused criminal damage.

by Guest Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:28 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Cyclists are always at fault

They have no insurance and don't pay road tax, nothing they do can be right until those two criteria are met

They have legal rights whether you like it or not.

They don't have the right to endanger other road users though, which they do on a daily basis

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:31 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

They have legal rights whether you like it or not.

They don't have the right to endanger other road users though, which they do on a daily basis

Some cyclists are idiots I agree.
In this case the driver drove far too close though.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:I dont think the cyclists were totally innocent, but had the car hurt one of them, he (the driver) would have been at fault imo. He definately drove too near the cyclists for safety.

They cycled too near the driver. They should have stayed behind the car. Also, kicking the car could have caused criminal damage.

No they didn't cycle too near the driver, the driver drove too near to them.
The road appeared to have narrowed after the junction so the car should have stayed behind till he had the opportunity to overtake.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They cycled too near the driver. They should have stayed behind the car. Also, kicking the car could have caused criminal damage.

No they didn't cycle too near the driver, the driver drove too near to them.
The road appeared to have narrowed after the junction so the car should have stayed behind till he had the opportunity to overtake.

The driver was never behind the cyclists before the kick. The cyclists should have stayed behind the car in the first place, and they should have pulled back when the road narrowed.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:54 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

No they didn't cycle too near the driver, the driver drove too near to them.
The road appeared to have narrowed after the junction so the car should have stayed behind till he had the opportunity to overtake.

The driver was never behind the cyclists before the kick. The cyclists should have stayed behind the car in the first place, and they should have pulled back when the road narrowed.

The cyclists were going at a steady pace, the car driver had to slow down because it was obvious he couldn't overtake.
He should have dropped back rather than cruise alongside them... in that circumstance a driver should always be aware that the cyclist is vulerable.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:56 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The driver was never behind the cyclists before the kick. The cyclists should have stayed behind the car in the first place, and they should have pulled back when the road narrowed.

The cyclists were going at a steady pace, the car driver had to slow down because it was obvious he couldn't overtake.
He should have dropped back rather than cruise alongside them... in that circumstance a driver should always be aware that the cyclist is vulerable.

The cyclists were going faster than the car - that's how they managed to overtake on the left. Then they cruised alongside the car instead of pulling back.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:57 pm

In any case, had the car driver hit and injured or killed the cyclist he would have been at fault.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

The cyclists were going at a steady pace, the car driver had to slow down because it was obvious he couldn't overtake.
He should have dropped back rather than cruise alongside them... in that circumstance a driver should always be aware that the cyclist is vulerable.

The cyclists were going faster than the car - that's how they managed to overtake on the left. Then they cruised alongside the car instead of pulling back.

In slow moving traffic cyclists can often overtake cars.
That doesnt give a car driver the right to drive alongside them and almost knock them off the road.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:00 pm

Syl wrote:In any case, had the car driver hit and injured or killed the cyclist he would have been at fault.

Well the driver didn't, and they were at fault.

The driver might have been a woman anyway.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:03 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The cyclists were going faster than the car - that's how they managed to overtake on the left. Then they cruised alongside the car instead of pulling back.

In slow moving traffic cyclists can often overtake cars.
That doesnt give a car driver the right to drive alongside them and almost knock them off the road.

Well they shouldn't overtake cars on the left - it's arrogant and dangerous. I don't think it was slowing-moving traffic anyway.

The car wasn't driving alongside them - they were cycling alongside the car. They should have stayed behind the car in the first place.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:17 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

In slow moving traffic cyclists can often overtake cars.
That doesnt give a car driver the right to drive alongside them and almost knock them off the road.

Well they shouldn't overtake cars on the left - it's arrogant and dangerous. I don't think it was slowing-moving traffic anyway.

The car wasn't driving alongside them - they were cycling alongside the car. They should have stayed behind the car in the first place.

A cyclist doesn't have to sit behind slow moving or standing traffic if they can safely pass, and passing on the inside isn't illegal either.
It was the car driver who made the mistake by driving too close to the cyclists when the road narrowed.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:18 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:In any case, had the car driver hit and injured or killed the cyclist he would have been at fault.

Well the driver didn't, and they were at fault.

The driver might have been a woman anyway.

Would that have made a difference? Razz

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they shouldn't overtake cars on the left - it's arrogant and dangerous. I don't think it was slowing-moving traffic anyway.

The car wasn't driving alongside them - they were cycling alongside the car. They should have stayed behind the car in the first place.

A cyclist doesn't have to sit behind slow moving or standing traffic if they can safely pass, and passing on the inside isn't illegal either.
It was the car driver who made the mistake by driving too close to the cyclists when the road narrowed.

Well clearly, they couldn't safely pass. There was no excuse for undertaking and then sitting alongside the car. The onus was on them to pull back if it became unsafe because they're the ones who were behind the car in the first place.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the driver didn't, and they were at fault.

The driver might have been a woman anyway.

Would that have made a difference?

No, it's just that you keep assuming it's a man. Razz

by Original Quill Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Well they shouldn't overtake cars on the left - it's arrogant and dangerous.

I don't know about arrogant, but it is dangerous. In this country the law is 'no passing on the right'...different sided driving in the US, but the point is the same.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Would that have made a difference?

No, it's just that you keep assuming it's a man.

Just a manner of speech, you are being picky now. Twisted Evil

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

A cyclist doesn't have to sit behind slow moving or standing traffic if they can safely pass, and passing on the inside isn't illegal either.
It was the car driver who made the mistake by driving too close to the cyclists when the road narrowed.

Well clearly, they couldn't safely pass. There was no excuse for undertaking and then sitting alongside the car. The onus was on them to pull back if it became unsafe because they're the ones who were behind the car in the first place.

But they did safely pass, that was obvious in the clip. It was when the road tapered and the car driver veered too near the bikes when it became dangerous. The cyclists didnt veer out...the car veered in.
As the video progressed the car driver realised he was in the wrong and he did drop back.

The cyclists shouldn't have kicked and hit his car though, but at least they made their point.
Maybe the driver was annoyed that he was travelling slower than a bike.

by Syl Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Well they shouldn't overtake cars on the left - it's arrogant and dangerous.

I don't know about arrogant, but it is dangerous. In this country the law is 'no passing on the right'...different sided driving in the US, but the point is the same.

It's not illegal here for a bike to undertake.

by Original Quill Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:45 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't know about arrogant, but it is dangerous. In this country the law is 'no passing on the right'...different sided driving in the US, but the point is the same.

It's not illegal here for a bike to undertake.

The problem is exactly what happened here. Drivers feel safer with maneuvers on the curb side, because they don't expect someone else to be there.

Again, accounting for driving on the right, the rule in the US is pass on left, yield on right.

The other rule that comes in to play here is, bicycles must abide by traffic rules for automobiles.

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:49 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well clearly, they couldn't safely pass. There was no excuse for undertaking and then sitting alongside the car. The onus was on them to pull back if it became unsafe because they're the ones who were behind the car in the first place.

But they did safely pass, that was obvious in the clip. It was when the road tapered and the car driver veered too near the bikes when it became dangerous. The cyclists didnt veer out...the car veered in.
As the video progressed the car driver realised he was in the wrong and he did drop back.

The cyclists shouldn't have kicked and hit his car though, but at least they made their point.
Maybe the driver was annoyed that he was travelling slower than a bike.

I think the driver pulled back because one of them attacked the car!

by Raggamuffin Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:50 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't know about arrogant, but it is dangerous. In this country the law is 'no passing on the right'...different sided driving in the US, but the point is the same.

It's not illegal here for a bike to undertake.

That's not really the point. It's a bit off to undertake and then kick the car for not pulling back.

by Syl Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:40 am

In slow moving or stationary traffic, cycles often undertake if they have room to do so and are travelling straight on, it's normal practice.

If the cyclist gets in front of the car the onus is on the car driver to overtake or draw level only when it's safe to do so, just as you would if it was another car you were drawing level with or overtaking.

Same when drivers get annoyed when cyclists ride two abreast...(which is pretty annoying I admit) but the cyclists are perfectly allowed to do so, and should be given the same width when overtaking as you would any other vehicle.

by Guest Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:55 am

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

They don't have the right to endanger other road users though, which they do on a daily basis

Some cyclists are idiots I agree.
In this case the driver drove far too close though.

most cyclists are idiots, i catergorize cyclists into 2 catergories, the sunny sunday cyclists, like me who are quite boring, safe and slow, and generally only use cycle paths and go from one pub to the next and the lyrca clad louts who are just utter cunts

just watched the footage again properly, the car doesnt pass the cyclist the cyclist passes the car, so the car cant be too close since it was in its position first, the cyclist is the one passing too close to the car.

by Syl Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:27 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Some cyclists are idiots I agree.
In this case the driver drove far too close though.

most cyclists are idiots, i catergorize cyclists into 2 catergories, the sunny sunday cyclists, like me who are quite boring, safe and slow, and generally only use cycle paths and go from one pub to the next and the lyrca clad louts who are just utter cunts

just watched the footage again properly, the car doesnt pass the cyclist the cyclist passes the car, so the car cant be too close since it was in its position first, the cyclist is the one passing too close to the car.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Yes the cyclist passed the car, then the road narrowed, so the bike was in front of the car, do you think the car driver has the right to veer into the bike because he dared to be ahead?
If a car overtakes you you dont shunt him out of the way because you were there first.

by Guest Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:15 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

most cyclists are idiots, i catergorize cyclists into 2 catergories, the sunny sunday cyclists, like me who are quite boring, safe and slow, and generally only use cycle paths and go from one pub to the next and the lyrca clad louts who are just utter cunts

just watched the footage again properly, the car doesnt pass the cyclist the cyclist passes the car, so the car cant be too close since it was in its position first, the cyclist is the one passing too close to the car.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Yes the cyclist passed the car, then the road narrowed, so the bike was in front of the car, do you think the car driver has the right to veer into the bike because he dared to be ahead?
If a car overtakes you you dont shunt him out of the way because you were there first.

that isnt what happened, watch the clip, the cyclist cycles up to the passanger window and then bangs on it with no reason, the car even veers out wide to avoid the first cyclist and then has to come back in when the road narrows, but by that time the cyclist was already level and probably in the blind spot

if youre driving along and a cyclists passes YOU, you cannot be too close to the cyclist because you were occupying the space first, its like if someone comes along and sits on your lap on a train and then moans youre crowding them.

also the bottom line is that the cyclist undertook the car so end of discussion on who is at fault

by 'Wolfie Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:23 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:I gave up cycling a few years ago because of idiotic drivers.
When in a car I see cyclists do the most ridiculous things on the road.

In the video I would actually say the cyclists were in the right to be peed off.

Cyclists are always at fault

They have no insurance and don't pay road tax, nothing they do can be right until those two criteria are met

You're a fucking idiot...

The main reason silly fools like you are anti-cyclist comes down to pure jealousy..

Too weak, unco-ordinated, generally incompetent, and simply too big a snowflake to ride a bicycle yourself, you're naturally opposed to anyone obviously superior to yourself.

by Guest Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:03 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Cyclists are always at fault

They have no insurance and don't pay road tax, nothing they do can be right until those two criteria are met

You're a fucking idiot...

The main reason silly fools like you are anti-cyclist comes down to pure jealousy..

Too weak, unco-ordinated, generally incompetent, and simply too big a snowflake to ride a bicycle yourself, you're naturally opposed to anyone obviously superior to yourself.

not sure you fully understand the term "snowflake"

by Raggamuffin Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:26 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

most cyclists are idiots, i catergorize cyclists into 2 catergories, the sunny sunday cyclists, like me who are quite boring, safe and slow, and generally only use cycle paths and go from one pub to the next and the lyrca clad louts who are just utter cunts

just watched the footage again properly, the car doesnt pass the cyclist the cyclist passes the car, so the car cant be too close since it was in its position first, the cyclist is the one passing too close to the car.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Yes the cyclist passed the car, then the road narrowed, so the bike was in front of the car, do you think the car driver has the right to veer into the bike because he dared to be ahead?
If a car overtakes you you dont shunt him out of the way because you were there first.

The bike wasn't in front of the car though. The cyclists just carried on alongside the car. That's what they shouldn't have done. If they want to be treated as a separate vehicle they should behave like they are instead of trying to ride alongside a moving car which was there first.

by Syl Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:07 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Yes the cyclist passed the car, then the road narrowed, so the bike was in front of the car, do you think the car driver has the right to veer into the bike because he dared to be ahead?
If a car overtakes you you dont shunt him out of the way because you were there first.

that isnt what happened, watch the clip, the cyclist cycles up to the passanger window and then bangs on it with no reason, the car even veers out wide to avoid the first cyclist and then has to come back in when the road narrows, but by that time the cyclist was already level and probably in the blind spot

if youre driving along and a cyclists passes YOU, you cannot be too close to the cyclist because you were occupying the space first, its like if someone comes along and sits on your lap on a train and then moans youre crowding them.

also the bottom line is that the cyclist undertook the car so end of discussion on who is at fault

The cyclist bangs on the window after the first cyclist kicks out at the car, they were both warning him he was too close.
Its not illegal for a cyclist to undertake, so them doing so doesn't mean they were automatically at fault.

by Syl Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:15 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
Yes the cyclist passed the car, then the road narrowed, so the bike was in front of the car, do you think the car driver has the right to veer into the bike because he dared to be ahead?
If a car overtakes you you dont shunt him out of the way because you were there first.

The bike wasn't in front of the car though. The cyclists just carried on alongside the car. That's what they shouldn't have done. If they want to be treated as a separate vehicle they should behave like they are instead of trying to ride alongside a moving car which was there first.

No, the cyclists were slightly ahead of the car after they crossed the junction.

"The video starts with two cyclists overtaking the instructor's car and coming up alongside a red Peugeot hatchback in front.
As the cyclists cross a junction, they pull slightly ahead of the Peugeot, whose driver speeds up to overtake them again.
However, the car gets too close to the leading cyclist, and he kicks the front of the car with his right foot."

by Maddog Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm

Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

by Guest Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:43 pm

Syl wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

that isnt what happened, watch the clip, the cyclist cycles up to the passanger window and then bangs on it with no reason, the car even veers out wide to avoid the first cyclist and then has to come back in when the road narrows, but by that time the cyclist was already level and probably in the blind spot

if youre driving along and a cyclists passes YOU, you cannot be too close to the cyclist because you were occupying the space first, its like if someone comes along and sits on your lap on a train and then moans youre crowding them.

also the bottom line is that the cyclist undertook the car so end of discussion on who is at fault

The cyclist bangs on the window after the first cyclist kicks out at the car, they were both warning him he was too close.
Its not illegal for a cyclist to undertake, so them doing so doesn't mean they were automatically at fault.

it is illegal to undertake, cyclsits arent above the law, they have to obey the same rules as drivers

by Guest Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:45 pm

Maddog wrote:Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

3 ft??

we have 1.5m rule here, which basically puts you into the oncomiing traffic to ovetake or stuck behind if the road is narrow

obvioulsy i give zero fucks abouit cyclists and just go past them regardless, beeping and swearing for good measure

the bastards

by Maddog Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

3 ft??

we have 1.5m rule here, which basically puts you into the oncomiing traffic to ovetake or stuck behind if the road is narrow

obvioulsy i give zero fucks abouit cyclists and just go past them regardless, beeping and swearing for good measure

the bastards

That's the point. The idea is to let a driver know that there isn't enough room for the car and the cyclist.

I think you passed me the other day. tongue

by Syl Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:43 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Syl wrote:

The cyclist bangs on the window after the first cyclist kicks out at the car, they were both warning him he was too close.
Its not illegal for a cyclist to undertake, so them doing so doesn't mean they were automatically at fault.

it is illegal to undertake, cyclsits arent above the law, they have to obey the same rules as drivers

It's illegal for cars to undertake it is not illegal for cycles....read the highway code.

by Syl Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:45 pm

Maddog wrote:Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

There was no cycle lane there and it's illegal to ride a bike on the pavement here.

The odd thing is people are encouraged to cycle, take public transport or walk when possible rather than take the car, yet there are very few cycle lanes in many parts of the country.

by Original Quill Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

There was no cycle lane there and it's illegal to ride a bike on the pavement here.

The odd thing is people are encouraged to cycle, take public transport or walk when possible rather than take the car, yet there are very few cycle lanes in many parts of the country.

Do you have a link, Syl?

by Syl Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

There was no cycle lane there and it's illegal to ride a bike on the pavement here.

The odd thing is people are encouraged to cycle, take public transport or walk when possible rather than take the car, yet there are very few cycle lanes in many parts of the country.

Do you have a link, Syl?

It's on the opening post Quill, just click on it and the video is on there.

by Maddog Thu Jul 11, 2019 7:52 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:Not sure if there is a 3 foot rule in the UK. We have it in areas in the US, but not in Texas.

In any event, the cyclist should know better. On a road like that I would take the lane, so that a car wouldn't even attempt to pass me. The only time I ride near the edge if the road is if there is a bike lane or the lane is very wide, like 14 feet wide.

There was no cycle lane there and it's illegal to ride a bike on the pavement here.

The odd thing is people are encouraged to cycle, take public transport or walk when possible rather than take the car, yet there are very few cycle lanes in many parts of the country.

So a cyclist can't take the lane?

by Raggamuffin Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:02 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The bike wasn't in front of the car though. The cyclists just carried on alongside the car. That's what they shouldn't have done. If they want to be treated as a separate vehicle they should behave like they are instead of trying to ride alongside a moving car which was there first.

No, the cyclists were slightly ahead of the car after they crossed the junction.

"The video starts with two cyclists overtaking the instructor's car and coming up alongside a red Peugeot hatchback in front.
As the cyclists cross a junction, they pull slightly ahead of the Peugeot, whose driver speeds up to overtake them again.
However, the car gets too close to the leading cyclist, and he kicks the front of the car with his right foot."

I didn't see the cyclists pull ahead. So who is in the wrong here? 2190311264

by Original Quill Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:18 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Do you have a link, Syl?

It's on the opening post Quill, just click on it and the video is on there.

No, it isn't. The only thing the Mirror posts about the law, is...

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the incident hadn't been reported them.

by Syl Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:44 am

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

It's on the opening post Quill, just click on it and the video is on there.

No, it isn't. The only thing the Mirror posts about the law, is...

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the incident hadn't been reported them.

I thought you meant a link to the video.
Watch it and make your own mind up.

by Sponsored content