advertisement


Complete moron on a bike

ks.234 said:
Last weekend I came upon a large group of cyclists, about 50. They were taking up the entire road, that is both sides of the road forming a complete road block. They showed no intention of moving so I gave them a toot on the horn. The two on the outside did eventually pull over, a car was coming the other way, but when I did overtake, I got a got a lot of shouting, swearing and gesticulation.

A little further along the road I came across another group waiting to cross the road at a junction. Then found myself surrounded on all sides by the first group, shouting and swearing and 3 offers to fight me and one daring me to get out of the car to take up his kind offer.

I am a cyclist myself so have my own experiences with inconsiderate and aggressive car drivers. However, this group of cyclists were a bunch of lycra clad total twats of the sort who have an inconsiderate and highly aggressive sense of entitlement that gives cyclists a bad name
Click to expand...
Were there any signs nearby saying things like 'Tour de France' or something? ;)
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Were there any signs nearby saying things like 'Tour de France' or something? ;)
Click to expand...
No, nothing like that. We do get a lot of organised cycling events here in the New Forest and they're not usually a problem as it's well signposted with warning sides on the route and the cyclists seem set off in small groups so as not to create an issue for other road users. We also get a lot of horse riders, so driving slowly and taking a wide berth is part of the way of life round here. When consideration is shown on all sides there is not a problem. This lot were quite literally all over the place
 
Last edited:
flatpopely said:
I didn’t say that though, did I.
Click to expand...
You did really, you implied that just because he was drunk doesn’t mean he was guilty or liable when that’s exactly what he is. I don’t think such caveats would apply if he’d ‘just’ run down an old lady. The fact that the victim was on a scooter is largely irrelevant but it makes for a more newsworthy angle. You only have to look at some of the comments on SM.
 
tiggers said:
While in all likelihood being no way at fault in terms of the incident (can't say 100% as I wasn't there and haven't seen it) it should be noted that e-scooters are not legally allowed to be used on the road unless part of a current pilot scheme (Bromley does not have one) and even then the rider has to posses a provisional or full driving licence, something a 16 year old is unlikely to do (not impossible though). In this case the driver being over the limit and seemingly on the wrong side of the road has resulted in a horrendous incident and the driver deserves all that is coming and more, but let's not paint our 16 year old lawbreaker (unless he is enlisted in a pilot scheme in some other part of London) as some saint. He should (in all likelihood) not have been on the bloody thing and more enforcement is needed around them as they are all over the capital and being ridden by some utter idiots with no respect for any other road users (drivers, cyclists or pedestrians). Failing that a lot more of this sort of thing will happen and it won't be drunk drivers just people going about their business being confronted by some inexperienced idiot who thinks riding an e-scooter aggressively is in some way 'cool'.
Click to expand...
That is a ridiculous position to take. I thought Bromley was in the Tier scheme. A 16 year old boy has been killed. Blatant victim blaming.
 
Woodface said:
You did really, you implied that just because he was drunk doesn’t mean he was guilty or liable when that’s exactly what he is. I don’t think such caveats would apply if he’d ‘just’ run down an old lady. The fact that the victim was on a scooter is largely irrelevant but it makes for a more newsworthy angle. You only have to look at some of the comments on SM.
Click to expand...
I did not refer to this case at all, just questioned your comment about if your drunk at the wheel it's 100% always the drivers fault.
 
Woodface said:
That is a ridiculous position to take. I thought Bromley was in the Tier scheme. A 16 year old boy has been killed. Blatant victim blaming.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it really isn't and not seeing all sides of road use is what generates so many issues on the roads between different types of road user. Nothing is ever black and white and treating it thus generates animosity and complacency in equal measures. As I said in this case the drunk driver is clearly in the wrong, but to ignore the fact that the e-scooter user in all likelihood should not have been on the road is only going to reinforce to many others that breaking the law is OK. You do (IMO) seem to have a skewed view on this sort of thing that I think comes from being firmly in the camp of one section of road users (in this case cycling). Polarised views are often taken by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers often because they are way more pro one more than the other. As an avid car fanatic and a cyclist as well as a public transport user (less so these days) I try to look at all sides of road/transport use in as fair and objective way as I can. As a slight aside, over the years I have come to the conclusion that all of us would be a lot better off if we all obeyed the rules a bit more and spent less time using what everyone else was doing to justify our own personal decisions to break said rules.
 
Another friend hospitalised this week.

We all need to chill out a bit and respect other road users otherwise life may well be too short.

Seems to have got worse during lockdown as everyone is stressed and primed to go off on one.

Drive defensively and leave your fragile ego at home.
 
I’d say that if you are under the influence of drink or drugs at the time of a collision, it will weaken any mitigation you have considerably. Your ability to complete the divided attention tasks associated with driving are diminished after 1 pint of lager, never mind two. This is why S4 RTC is still available. I found S4 underused but very powerful in dealing with folk who blew under the proscribed limit evidentially under S5 RTC, but were clearly impaired.

Field Impairment Testing is an eye opener in this regard.
 
Woodface said:
You did really, you implied that just because he was drunk doesn’t mean he was guilty or liable when that’s exactly what he is. I don’t think such caveats would apply if he’d ‘just’ run down an old lady. The fact that the victim was on a scooter is largely irrelevant but it makes for a more newsworthy angle. You only have to look at some of the comments on SM.
Click to expand...
Have you seen any witness evidence, heard any explanation from either party? No, you won't have unless you're the investigating officer or a member of the CPS. Give it a rest until the case is heard. At the moment you're just part of the noise on social media.
 
Thorn said:
Have you seen any witness evidence, heard any explanation from either party? No, you won't have unless you're the investigating officer or a member of the CPS.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is also usually my default response. Very easy to convict someone pre trial on social media when all the facts are not in the public domain - and nor should they be until the case is completed.
 
tiggers said:
Sorry, but it really isn't and not seeing all sides of road use is what generates so many issues on the roads between different types of road user. Nothing is ever black and white and treating it thus generates animosity and complacency in equal measures. As I said in this case the drunk driver is clearly in the wrong, but to ignore the fact that the e-scooter user in all likelihood should not have been on the road is only going to reinforce to many others that breaking the law is OK. You do (IMO) seem to have a skewed view on this sort of thing that I think comes from being firmly in the camp of one section of road users (in this case cycling). Polarised views are often taken by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers often because they are way more pro one more than the other. As an avid car fanatic and a cyclist as well as a public transport user (less so these days) I try to look at all sides of road/transport use in as fair and objective way as I can. As a slight aside, over the years I have come to the conclusion that all of us would be a lot better off if we all obeyed the rules a bit more and spent less time using what everyone else was doing to justify our own personal decisions to break said rules.
Click to expand...
I drive & cycle. The latter is for leisure & exercise; I used to be a high mileage driver. I can see both sides of the argument but there is only one side here. Drunk driver, wrong side of the road & a 16 year old boy has been killed. The presence of an electric scooter is largely if not totally irrelevant. Car is king in this country, the other side of the debate is never seen in the real sense due to a massive sense of entitlement by road users. I am certainly not a cycling activist, don't even have a go-pro but do get a little tired of aggressive drivers being dicks & it is never, ever there fault.

Hope you enjoyed your popcorn
 
Woodface said:
I drive & cycle. The latter is for leisure & exercise; I used to be a high mileage driver. I can see both sides of the argument but there is only one side here. Drunk driver, wrong side of the road & a 16 year old boy has been killed. The presence of an electric scooter is largely if not totally irrelevant. Car is king in this country, the other side of the debate is never seen in the real sense due to a massive sense of entitlement by road users. I am certainly not a cycling activist, don't even have a go-pro but do get a little tired of aggressive drivers being dicks & it is never, ever there fault.
Click to expand...

I’m sure the process will arrive at the same conclusion thru the Coroners and Crown Courts.

I get your frustration. I also drive and cycle.

You can have an opinion, of course. But in these cases you’ll not get me siding with anyone until due process has been followed. I’m too long in the tooth to do otherwise.

I’ve read the article here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/escooter-crash-teenager-killed-bromley-police-b946489.html

This case looks anything but straightforward. How does the witness know he was doing 70mph? Why did the e-scooter get picked up? Etc etc
 
Andrew C! said:
[...]in these cases you’ll not get me siding with anyone until due process has been followed. I’m too long in the tooth to do otherwise.<snip>
This case looks anything but straightforward. How does the witness know he was doing 70mph? Why did the e-scooter get picked up? Etc etc
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the point that, as e-scooters are not yet road legal, if he'd been obeying the law he wouldn't have been in that place (which is not victim-blaming, just acknowledging the awful irony), there are other questions, too. Why was a 16 year old on the road at 1:30am? Did the scooter have lights or was it largely invisible? The second question will surely have been a factor. Yes, the driver was drunk and no, he shouldn't have driven on the wrong side to avoid a camera, but if he wouldn't have seen the scooter in the dark, without lights, he made a very different decision to one he might have made if he'd been aware there was someone in his intended path.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Leaving aside the point that, as e-scooters are not yet road legal, if he'd been obeying the law he wouldn't have been in that place (which is not victim-blaming, just acknowledging the awful irony), there are other questions, too. Why was a 16 year old on the road at 1:30am? Did the scooter have lights or was it largely invisible? The second question will surely have been a factor. Yes, the driver was drunk and no, he shouldn't have driven on the wrong side to avoid a camera, but if he wouldn't have seen the scooter in the dark, without lights, he made a very different decision to one he might have made if he'd been aware there was someone in his intended path.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
If it's confirmed the driver was drunk and on the wrong side of the road, I predict the car driver will at best share blame with the e-scooter rider. I can't see how the driver will get off scot-free.
 
darrenyeats said:
If it's confirmed the driver was drunk and on the wrong side of the road, I predict the car driver will at best share blame with the e-scooter rider. I can't see how the driver will get off scot-free.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a given. Drunk driver is, on the facts as described, utterly in the wrong. The facts relating to the scooter don’t seem likely to amount to much by way of mitigation. The lesson, if there is one here, is that we all take some responsibility for our own safety because this is a tragic case of ‘wrong place, wrong time’.
 
That's terrible, poor kid and family, everything else doesn't really matter if the driver was drunk he shouldn't have been behind the wheel. I don't think it's anyones business bar the parents of why the kid was out at 1.30 am, I used to thumb it home from a girlfriends house at those times when I was 15/16 at the weekends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top