:
|
Other than that, to make your rant about the incident at 4:25 irrelevant, first, learn your highway code:
The cyclist was travelling at over 10 MPH so had every right to be in the middle of the road, which justifies his behaviour. That's not self-righteous. The car driver blatantly breaks the law by overtaking him across solid double white lines in the path of oncoming traffic (which would have broken the law even if the cyclist was travelling at under 10 MPH), then slams on the breaks directly infront of the cyclist, gets out and starts swearing at him.
|
oh right, so whenever someone does something i believe is wrong, i should stubbornly stay where i am because
i'm in the right and perhaps cause an accident? no, that
is being self righteous. he believes he's right 100% of the time and doesn't seem to realize that, yes, there are dicks on the road, everyone has to deal with them, and the best and most sensible way to deal with them is to actually use your common sense and sometimes give way/slow down/stop altogether. you don't have time to flick through the highway code when someone cuts you up or overtakes you, you just have to swallow your pride and go with it, otherwise you'll just cause a fucking accident. then what will you say to the authorities? "oh, he was trying to overtake me but i was clearly in the right so i didn't move, that's when the crash happened." yeah, fantastic excuse.
my old driving instructor told me "the real test begins when you've passed and you're on your own", and it's absolutely true. i'm sorry, but a lot of people don't adhere to the highway code all the time, and in order to keep traffic flowing and accident-free, sometimes you need to go by experience and common sense rather than just plain right-or-wrong law.
:
|
And you're ranting about cyclists needing to abide to the law?
|
i mentioned that, but it wasn't the core of my argument. reread my previous post. i'm sick to the pit of my fucking stomach of people claiming i'm saying one thing when in fact i'm actually saying something totally different. just because i disagree with you, doesn't mean i'm
totally opposed to your argument.
:
As for the taxi driver, remember that the video was taken out of context. You should watch the entire thing first (click here), particularly the parts after 2:11 where the taxi driver drives in the cycle lane while other cyclists are using it, and where he pushes past the camera cyclist taking the video at speed at 2:52 (breaking Highway Code Rule 163). Because the camera cyclists filters past the Taxi shortly afterwards (perfectly legal), the taxi driver then tries to run him off the road by stopping directly infront of him, believing the cyclist touched his cab which he clearly did not - That's NOT overtaking, that's being a dick! And nothing justifies that! |
no no, he hit his car, he even said he did in the video description. you can clearly hear it and he says in the video when confronted about it "if i could touch your cab, you were too close" which is fair enough, but the fact remains that he should. not. have. hit. his. car. what if that driver thought he'd actually hit the cyclist? what if the banging distracted him from driving for a couple of seconds? it wasn't a life or death situation, therefore he shouldn't have done it, the end.
no, that isn't overtaking. know why? because that dick on a bike was once again blinded by the fact that he was in the right, which he was, and let it smother his common sense to
slow the fuck down. you're in the right, whoopifuckingdoo, that doesn't excuse being a stubborn prick and hitting his cab as if he was gonna kill him. guess what? he wasn't gonna kill him because the
normal thing to do would be to slow down and let him pass, therefore there was no need for that or his melodramatic performance.
also, he didn't try to 'run him off the road' at all. if he was trying to run him off the road i think he would have done a bit better than stopping in front of him and getting
out of the car. he stopped because the bloke hit his car and it pissed him off, and rightfully so, he didn't go into a murderous rage and decide to try and run the bloke off the road. stop bullshitting, because the evidence is there on camera for all to see.
all in all, the
drivers were in the wrong and the
guy on the bike was right. thing is, just because he's in the right he believes he can be stubborn about it and not budge a fucking inch. he can't do that, otherwise he's just as bad as those other drivers. he could have caused an accident with the bloke driving at 4:25 just because he couldn't swallow his pride and let the fucker pass. he was trying to overtake him with oncoming traffic, which is unbelievably stupid and dangerous, but that does
not excuse the cyclists behaviour. the bloke almost hit an oncoming car which he could have avoided if he didn't have to race the bike to get past it without crashing. he shouldn't have even tried to overtake the cyclist, but if he had crashed during that little race, the cyclist would be to blame too, to the point where it could have been prevented if he'd just let him pass. there was no reason for him being so stubborn other than 'he's wrong and i'm right, therefore i am not moving'. fucking ridiculous.
also, thanks for showing me the cab-driver video. it only solidifies my point that he
is an absolute self righteous shit. because that's what he is, he fits the bill perfectly. i mean, the driver poked the camera on his helmet, and the cyclist shouts "assault"? oh my god, what a slimy weasel. as soon as someone shouts 'assault' it becomes a very sticky situation. i've been there, and anything you say to defend yourself seems to be misconstrued by people you don't even fucking know that just happened to be there at the time. also, what was with the "let's all applaud for the mug"? what was the point in that? does he think he can get away with goading people like that just because he has a camera?
he's a dick with a camera, nothing more, and because he has a camera he seems to believe that people can't touch him and that he has some sort of protection from wrong. i can't stand the bloke. it'll only take a few people to die in an accident he could have prevented before he gets it through his thick skull that just because he's legally in the right, doesn't mean he has permission to eject his common sense and put others in danger.
yes, if everyone adhered strictly to the highway code and never broke a law, there would be far less accidents, but seeing as we don't have microchips in our heads just yet, don't you think in the mean time it'd be wise to try your best not to provoke or even cause an accident? if you can see a crash about to happen, and you know you can stop it by doing something so simple, wouldn't it be a good idea to just do it? or do they deserve to crash because they're not following the highway code?
because if you think about it, when compared to crashes, pile-ups, hit and run incidents and all the other incredibly dangerous shit that happens on the road, the highway code looks quite pathetic. when it's someone's life on the line, the highway code doesn't matter. the highway code can fuck right off and your common sense and instinct to do the right thing can take over.
