By on January 27, 2014

audipunch

Well, this is certainly an interesting situation. When an Audi A7 decided to snag some of the empty space in a “bike box” at a central London intersection, a couple of cyclists decided to give the driver of that Audi some forthright feedback. Naturally, the situation escalated.

The video is fairly easy to follow: cyclists get outraged, they chase down the Audi, they engage in typical “Critical Mass” behavior. This sort of stuff happens all the time in cities and your humble author is slightly abashed to admit that twenty years or so he was probably responsible for some of it himself, as a Super-class BMX racer who rode in a lot of cities alone and with groups of similar knuckleheads. When there are multiple cyclists involved, it’s bullying, plain and simple.

This time, however, the script was rewritten when a passenger hops out of the Audi and drills the offending (or offended, depending on your perspective) biker with a left hook. This significantly dampens the righteous ardor of said cyclist and he makes the proverbial right on red out of the situation. According to the Daily Mail, the London Metropolitan Police state they are ready to prosecute, but they have not been contacted by the cyclist.

It’s at that point that my eyebrows raise a little bit here. Precisely what prosecution do they have in mind? Are they thinking that they would prosecute for the offense of “entering the box”? They have evidence for it now. Are they thinking they would prosecute the cyclist for harassing the passenger and/or driver? Surely, even in Cool Britannia one has the right to drive down the street without being screamed at in a threatening fashion by black-clad anonymous bikers. Sadly, I suspect it’s the actual punch for which they’d be willing to prosecute. Which makes the London Metropolitan Police no better at unraveling a crime/punishment situation than my fourth-grade Catholic-school teacher, who would frequently punish me for finishing a situation started by another student. I never got the knack of doing that stuff when her back was turned.

I have very little issue placing the blame for the confrontation on the cyclist. Yeah, the Audi driver was in the box. No, he wasn’t impeding or threatening any bikers. To the contrary, he wanted to get around them and out of their way. He didn’t want to drive down the road behind a clump of road-hogging bikes. This is a legitimate if perhaps intemperate goal. This brought out the “anti-cager” in a cyclist who then decided to make it personal. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that this approach has worked for that cyclist many times before, perhaps when applied to frightened mothers, young people, the elderly, and the non-aggressive. Whenever you see someone acting in a hyper-aggressive manner in public, it’s usually safe to assume that this is not their first time doing so.

Unfortunately, this time the passenger called his bluff. Oops! Were your humble author in charge of the Metropolitan Police, I’d cite the driver for breaking the box. Then I’d file charges for assault against the cyclist and passenger and offer to drop them together or not at all. What would the B&B do?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

172 Comments on “Car Bullies Bikes, Cyclist Bullies Driver, Passenger Responds With Left Hook...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Jack, I agree with your recommendation. Everybody in this mess needs to eat some humble pie.

    • 0 avatar
      vtnoah

      As someone who has been on both sides of Vehicle / Cyclist confrontations I’ll readily admit that everyone in this situation isn’t exactly a genius. People need to chill, Jesus Christ. I will say the cyclist escalated the situation by chasing the A7 down. Seemed like he was trying to show off to his nonplussed compatriots who weren’t even paying attention and got rightfully blasted in the face.

  • avatar
    zeus01

    Kinda makes me want to carry a super-soaker filled with a concoction of stale piss and caustic soda to unload on these self-righteous ultra-socialist ass-wipes as I (finally) squeeze past them when they’re riding four-abreast.

    • 0 avatar
      Caboose

      Pro Tip: Instead, fill your Super-Soaker with Nair, at about twice the recommended concentration.

      Doesn’t burn the eyes as badly as your piss’n’soda, but about 15 minutes later, their grody, unwashed hair will come in large clumps, all My-First-Chemo-Treatment like. The effect, like the lesson, is lasting.

    • 0 avatar
      Kinosh

      As a bicyclist (and motorist… and transit user…) who has been hit multiple times until I started taking the lane when necessary…

      Sometimes it’s a necessary tool to stay safe!

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Cool, you just took a volatile situation from one that could endIin some hurt feelings to skin lesions, blindness, or death. You are one cool character, that is unless somebody recovers from your little stunt in time to re-engage and brings a knife or gun to bear. See how your stupid attitude just killed somebody? There is a fine line between being an asshole and being a murderer and you crossed it when you decided to throw caustic material on them.

      I mean, seriously, why would you think that is acceptable behavior over words? It isn’t defense, it’s a clear scaling of aggression using a hazardous chemical. Sociopaths act out that way. I’m willing to chalk it up as internet bravado but that’s the exact behavior that takes you from an Audi A7 to Cell block A7 for 10-20 years.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Situation played out how it was supposed to. Punks jump up to get beat down. I rode bikes in NYC for about 10 years. Safest way to do it is to put self-preservation first. These guys are lucky dude just threw punches… IMO righteousness is not worth getting run over by a car.

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    It is the responsibility of the PO-LICE to enforce the traffic laws. It is not your job as random Joe Citizen to enforce the speed limit or the lines on the road or the red lights. The bike riders are out of line for going vigilante. That’s no different from the person who decides to teach everyone a lesson by parking in the left lane, doing the speed limit, and randomly slamming on his brakes to teach everyone to slow down (oh, wait, one of the TTAC writers advocated that once…). FIDO applies to the bike rider as much as the car driver.

    In pistol training, they tell you – if you can get out of the situation, get out of the situation. It is not your job to discipline the bad guy. This rule applies to all situations where, when there is no imminent threat to you, you do not get to be pretend PO-LICE man.

    If I were on a jury, and somebody in a car were surrounded by a bike mob, I would be sympathetic to the idea that bikers were going to do them bodily harm, and running a biker down or two would be justified if it happened while trying to get away from the situation.

    Edit Note: I love what you have done with the edit button.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The video shows very little of what happened.

      If the cyclist was just shouting at the driver, then the best options would be to shout back or to ignore it, not to escalate it.

      If the cyclist was threatening or menacing the driver, then the response was measured, and I certainly wouldn’t prosecute for anything more than the traffic violation.

      • 0 avatar
        MrGreenMan

        I saw six cyclists (counting camera man); I saw the Audi drive on; I saw camera man and instigator drive down on the Audi specifically with the point of re-engaging on the passenger side. Since I suspect from the video that the others were just a little slow in descending on the scene, and, if I were the Audi driver, I would have suspected they were all working together since that’s what bikers do, you have a situation where the bike riders could not forget it and drive on, but pursued after instigating, and so is not an innocent party.

        It’s just like if somebody comes and tries to beat down your door, and is shouting bloody murder, and you don’t know them and have never done anything to him, and you’re 160 lbs and he’s 320 lbs, you’re going to be justified in using lethal force if he won’t go away. However, if you just stole his car and parked it in your garage, and he was in pursuit and had already called the police and wanted to be sure you didn’t leave without him getting his car back, you are facing felony charges for stealing the car and for murdering this man who came back for his car because you are not an innocent party.

        Because they were formed up in a group and they clearly turned around, engaged, then pursued and re-engaged, the car driver can reasonably be fearful that these two are the front and he’s also going to be attacked from the other four.

        Edit: The Audi driver did initially do the best option: Move on. However, they were pursued and re-engaged.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          It’s London, not Louisville or Little Rock. There are bicycle commuters there; they aren’t all part of one big non-motor-cycle gang.

          If he was fearful of the bunch, then the driver would have probably stayed in the car. It would appear that both saw this as a one-on-one confrontation.

          In the UK, the right side of the car is the driver side. The second confrontation occurred on the driver side of the car.

          • 0 avatar
            Firestorm 500

            Have you ever been to Little Rock? I live near there, and there are bicycle commuters. Mostly, however, bicyclists ride together in packs of 4-100 or so on the weekends.

            My wife and daughter had an incident with a kamikaze biker and his pack a couple of years ago on a narrow 2-lane road with limited sight distance. One of them, who had been riding near the edge, decided to swerve right out in front of her with absolutely no warning, almost hitting the car. She had to lock up the brakes to keep from killing him. It scared them really bad.

            She got up beside him and told him that he needed to be more careful while riding. He proceeded to flip them off and shout sexual epithets to them.

            He wouldn’t have gotten away with it if I had been in the car. I can sympathize with the Audi occupants.

            200 pound bike & rider versus a 4000 pound car? They’re going to lose every time.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re in luck. I do some business in Arkansas, and have also spent a fair amount of time in London.

            There’s no comparison between the two. In the UK generally and London in particular, about 2% of trips are taken by bike. In Little Rock, that figure is well below that, at 0.18%.

            http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/bike-to-work-map-us-cities-census-data.html

            Cities such as London also have far more pedestrian traffic and much greater use of public transit. Unlike the US, London and most other European cities don’t have much in the way of crosstown freeways/ motorways, so city commuters spend much of their time on city streets.

            The US is very, very different. If you haven’t spent time abroad, then it can be hard to grasp how different it can be elsewhere (and not necessarily for the worse.)

        • 0 avatar

          I didn’t see any gang, I saw one dickhead and a bunch of bicyclists who weren’t paying any attention at all, not even the cameraman, until the one rider started making a scene. Seems to me like he was sent on his way rather effectively.

          • 0 avatar
            Wscott97

            What do you mean a bunch of bicyclists who weren’t paying attention? The road was clearly marked that cyclists stay up front and there was a line second line in the back for the cars to stop at. In a lot of countries the cars stop at the second line to has to wait for cyclists and mopeds to go first. They even let the motorist know that he was in the wrong place before he sped off. The Audi driver was clearly in the wrong. I just wish the camera man had the camera on the full length of the incident and the licence plate number.

          • 0 avatar

            I mean that the other bikers are not paying attention to the car or the other rider at all until they hear the fight start, Then they turn to look which is when it got caught on film.

            There is no “they” there is one guy. There was no mob hunting down the car, all the riders were individuals, each person doing their own thing, and waiting for the light.

        • 0 avatar

          Were you watching the same video?

          I saw an antsy driver of a 2-ton vehicle aggressively, and rather unnecessarily, proceeding beyond the ASL and into a cycle box that was filled with cyclists. When the light changed, that same driver accelerated hard with a cyclist within inches of his door. All of that is both dangerous to the cyclists and totally pointless seeing as how the cyclists pretty much caught up to the guy at the next stop light.

          I am not sure why the driver felt like he needed to antagonize the cyclists in the first place. If he had just waited a few moments, they would have all filtered back over to the left and he could have avoided the entire confrontation.

          • 0 avatar
            -Nate

            “What do you mean a bunch of bicyclists who weren’t paying attention? The road was clearly marked that cyclists stay up front and there was a line second line in the back for the cars to stop at. In a lot of countries the cars stop at the second line to has to wait for cyclists and mopeds to go first. They even let the motorist know that he was in the wrong place before he sped off. The Audi driver was clearly in the wrong. I just wish the camera man had the camera on the full length of the incident and the licence plate number.”

            He meant :

            A bunch of normal people were safely riding their bikes and pulled up to a light and -one- of them decided to act a fool and the other riders paid little attention ~ if this was a ” bike gang ” the rider with the camera would have surely gotten the Audi’s tag info .

            TWO jerks in traffic , one got punched , the other escaped scott free .

            -Nate

        • 0 avatar
          maddog

          Getting *out of your car* and attacking someone who is yelling at you is assault, plain and simple.

          Take your meathead attitude to prison where it belongs.

          • 0 avatar
            Pastor Glenn

            Actually, the bikers assaulted the car driver by their threatening behavior, and most of all, their verbal shouting (which is actually assault).

            The driver (?) committed battery (hitting).

            Whether it was truly in self defense should have truly been up to a court of law, if there is such a thing on this earth (i.e. true justice).

  • avatar
    crm114

    Is that the passenger or the driver? Wrong side of the road and all.

  • avatar

    Lol

    Has no one learned ANYTHING. From the “Range Rover runs over bikers” video…

    DO NOT PURSUE A DRIVER.

    NOTIFY THE POLICE!!!

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The word on the street is that the police aren’t interested in this sort of thing.

      Cyclists are, therefore, on their own. Definitely in their own minds, and likely in real life too.

      It’s hard to tell if that’s actually true. After my experiences with some crazy-aggressive police officers, it’s not like I’m going to just ask them a question.

      • 0 avatar
        Firestorm 500

        I’m more worried about, and more likely to cross paths with, crazy-aggressive bikers.

        Since I have had personal experience with them.

        And only one incident with a crazy-aggressive National Park Ranger. He should have never been approved for contact with the public.

    • 0 avatar
      dude500

      +1. and whatever happened to that range rover story?

      • 0 avatar

        The Range Rover story died down when the law went after the bikers and the entire racial aspect of “an Asian driver running down Black motor cycle gangs” was turned upside down.

        I was on the Range Rover driver’s side from the very beginning. I might have handled it differently however.

    • 0 avatar
      Firestorm 500

      Heck, the police, or at least an undercover police officer, participated in the Range Rover terroristic threatening and assault.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    I say punch the ticket of the idiot who came up with the idea of having the cyclists drive up and get in front of the car in the first place. Doesn’t this just mean the car has to pass the bike again and again as they go through town? How many collisions does this cause per year?

    Jimmy Carter did a sensible thing by serving as an example and ditching the stupid noose around the neck. If you want to encourage cycling for a commute, ditch the effing corporate dress codes or build actual secure bike bins or take stolen bicycles seriously, or any number of things other than playing zero sum games and punishing drivers.

    • 0 avatar
      W.Minter

      +1.
      Plus:
      - Shared space = survival of the fittest. In terms of weight & hp.
      - Seperate bike lanes, no pedestrians, no buses, no parking.

      EDIT: How many cyclists use some kind of dashcam? Is cycling in London the 2 wheel version of driving in Russia?

      • 0 avatar
        NMGOM

        W. Minter – - –

        “Separate bike lanes, no pedestrians, no buses, no parking.”

        This is the key. Cars and bikes just don’t mix well, and this type of situation illustrates that problem.
        Appleton, WI, instituted bike lanes, and they have been VERY effective, especially for kids.

        Although, about 1/2 of the cyclists position themselves at the road edge (not curb-edge) of their bike lanes, still forcing cars to swerve around them for fear of clipping a handle bar. And there still are cyclists who like to have things “three ways”: at times, they obey car-traffic laws; at other times, they obey bike-laws; and still other times, they enjoy the privileges of being pedestrians.

        Sometimes car drivers just never know what a cyclist is going to do, or what mood he is in…

        ————–

      • 0 avatar
        benders

        I use a helmet cam when cycling and I live in a small Illinois town. It’s because too many other road users refuse to respect my rights on a bicycle and if there is an incident, I want to be sure the facts are all known.

      • 0 avatar
        Firestorm 500

        I saw the aggressive cyclist intrude on the “Buses Only” lane several times on his way to waylay the Audi again. He cut around a stopped bus, that was in the bus lane, with little clearance. If the bus had moved an inch, the cyclist would have broadsided the bus or got under the wheels. He was also speeding and weaving in his zeal to get the Audi.

        His buddy had a helmet cam or a GoPro on his helmet so that they can relive their exciting lawbreaking commutes, and altercations with motorists.

    • 0 avatar

      The purpose of allowing the bikes to move up in front is to make them more visible. In a densely trafficked city like London, cyclists are often averaging the same total transit time as cars because as often as a car passes them, they pass the car while it is stuck in traffic.

      The ideal thing would be for there to be separate infrastructure for bikes from cars, much as the Danes have done in cities like Copenhagen. In cities where cycle tracks and protected bike lanes are available, accidents involving a car and a bike are significantly reduced. However, car drivers subsequently complain about the loss of a driving lane or parking so this hardly ever gets implemented correctly.

      • 0 avatar
        Firestorm 500

        Since the bicyclists are not paying any fuel or road use taxes, they are using infrastructure for their own advantage that they did not have a part in paying for.

        If they want their own lane, the taxpaying motorists are under no obligation to provide them one at no charge.

        • 0 avatar
          Hillman

          Depends on where you live. The State of Virginia moves a percentage of the sales tax to the roads. So even if you don’t have a car you still have to pay for the roads. Now in other states that don’t have a similar set up the theory still holds true. Since everything is shipped in on truck you still have to concede that people who don’t drive pay for the roads through the diesel tax/fees the delivery trucks pay. Also, the bicyclists don’t cause any real wear on the roads.

          • 0 avatar
            Firestorm 500

            I think the most fair thing would be to charge a bicyclist a license/user fee of say, $100 per year if the bike can be used on hard-surfaced public roadways.

            On bicycles only used on non-paved or off road, no fee would apply.

      • 0 avatar
        CRConrad

        The lanes aren’t TOTALLY separate in Copenhagen either. Bikers still have to cross car lines at intersections, and so on. (Been there; seen that.)

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Start mouthing off like that at my wife while she’s driving me and… well you better hope your fellow cyclists are more critical mass and less modest mouse like that lot. We don’t drive over bike boxes, but if we do make sure you’re clearly identifying yourself as an appropriate law enforcment officer BEFORE you start asserting your right to control our behavior, otherwise it may be over before anyone told you it was on.

    • 0 avatar
      brenschluss

      Because you’re the toughest, fastest gun in the West, right?

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

        I might not be the fastest gun in the West, but at least I have a gun.

        Or 7.

        And dopey Republicans would be quite surprised how many guns you can fit in a Volt.

        That said, as someone who actually did get into a fistfight on a city street (with another driver who got out of his car and reached thru my window), police would likely cite and/or arrest all involved and let the courts sort the matter out. Luckily, in my case, the cop in question saw the other driver get out of their car and walk across the front of mine to the driver’s side, so I had official witnesses to my acting in self-defense, but I’d still have to take time out of my day to go to court and testify to that.

        This was in NYC, before I was able to take responsibility for my own security. Now that I’m in Texas, if someone were to pull that with me, I’d probably just shoot ‘em, and get a no-bid for self-defense. Needless to say, this doesn’t happen much in Texas.

        ps: I’ve also been hit by a car while riding a bike, and hit by a speeding delivery guy on a bike while walking across a street.

        • 0 avatar
          brenschluss

          Everyone has a gun, or seven, or a thousand, and we’re all 250# athletes with BJJ coral belts.

          Anyone acting like they’re better at defending themselves than someone else is at attacking them is only pretending whether they know it or not; it might feel good, but the only way to win is not to play.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      “..at my wife while she’s driving me..”

      Nice display of macho protectiveness but I think we saw the driver get out and punch the pest. When he gets back in the mirror moves with the right-side door and that makes it the driver’s door in Blighty.

      It’s tough for a Yank… my wife and I are hooked on Midsomer Murders and other Brit TV. After 3 years of watching their videos we still have the OMG!-Wrong-Side! response to their traffic scenes.

  • avatar
    skor

    This is actually pretty tame. In the good ol’ US of Murica, this would have ended with a burst from an AK47.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “ended with a burst from an AK47.”

      …from a certain SRT 300 driven by a certain commentator…

      • 0 avatar

        Um – I don’t like AK 47′s.

        In order to fit a gun in my car with enough power to penetrate body armor – but still able to fit behind the driver’s seat, I’d either have a Magpul PD-R or a FN 5 -7 in the glove box next to my USB drive. Those bullets keep even the police awake at night in fear.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Ah very nice choice of the FN 5-7, esp since the PDR appears to have never been released.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Damn, I have to agree on the FN. If you want to shoot someone, it’s certainly a good choice. It’s no cap pistol.

          • 0 avatar

            The ammo of the 5-7 penetrates body armor. It’s the next best choice to a Personal Defense Weapon.

            I held the Magpul PDR at a gun show. I’m in love. Small enough to keep in a briefcase.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I had heard of the 5-7 as being epic but I was ignorant of the exact details. Wikipedia claims sales of the kevlar penetrating round is restricted to military and law enforcement. Then again, there are plenty of those folks.

            “In early 2005, the pistol was subject to controversy in the United States after the Brady Campaign stated that commercially available 5.7×28mm SS192 ammunition penetrated a Level IIA Kevlar vest in testing.[19][50] The National Rifle Association (NRA) shortly countered the Brady Campaign’s claim by stating that the gun control group may not have adhered to standard testing procedures, and that FN only offers armor-piercing varieties of the 5.7×28mm cartridge to military and law enforcement customers”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Five-seven

          • 0 avatar

            The body armor worn by cops isn’t hard to penetrate. It’s just that nowadays, the government has BOUGHT UP the lead ammo and is forcing you to buy softer metals (in the name of environmental protection).

            They’ve also made FMJ harder to get and allowed Hollowpoints to float around – which typically won’t penetrate armor.

            The 5-7′s rounds WILL penetrate like a 5.56 FMJ fired from an M4. Same goes for the FN P90′s rounds. Thing is, that power is in the palm of your hand rather than the size of a rifle.

            That’s the whole point of a Personal Defense Weapon: to have the power of a rifle in a gun the size of a submachinegun.

            They wasted NO TIME making these rounds illegal.

            Thing is, if you just need to take down soft targets hassling your car, hollowpoints are a better choice. Leaves deep wound channels…

            …even deeper in Liberals.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            You’ll be happy to know that firearms are the #1 problem-solving tool of conservatives as well as the mentally ill.

            Edit: OOPS – wrong website – why do I keep making this mistake? :-)

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            Last I checked, Liberals nor Conservatives have any problem using guns to force their agendas.

        • 0 avatar
          Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

          That’s if you can get your hands on FMJ 5.7×28 (the good, armor-piercing kind).

          Oh, and wow much money for the whole 5.7×28 ecosystem, a PMR-30 makes more sense to me :p

  • avatar
    Flybrian

    I would like to differentiate between ‘cyclists’ and ‘idiots on bikes.’

    Here in West Central Florida, cyclists consist of recreational cyclists with expensive bicycles and adorable fluorescent riding attire. I would lump Mexican and Central American immigrants going to/from work, non-fanatical recreational bicyclists, families, students, and some normal Joes commuting in this group as well. They are usually calm, extend courtesies both ways, and are ‘good citizens’ of the motorist community.

    Then there are the scumbag, lowlife, trailer denizens who have voluntarily forfeited their licenses due to a love of the bottle or pills or some other excuse. Dopeboys of all colors are also in this group. These idiots on bikes don’t wear reflective clothing at night, often rig up 2-stroke motors to their rusted death traps, ignore signals, and generally act like raving lunatics when a vehicle gets too close for their jilted ‘comfort.’

    I never have a problem with cyclists. I really wish someone would mow down each and every idiot on a bike.

    Just had to vent.

  • avatar
    sitting@home

    “they engage in typical “Critical Mass” behavior.”

    It doesn’t really show that. It shows that it’s just as quick to cycle in London as to drive an Audi because the next red light is only 100 yards along and all traffic bunches up. The cameraman was ahead of the confrontation and probably only turned around when he heard the commotion. None of the other cyclists get involved, which hardly makes a mob. What can’t be heard is what the guy in the car said to the cyclist before driving off; from the speed in which it flares into punches, I would gather it wasn’t exactly a phrase Her Majesty would have spoken.

    • 0 avatar
      benders

      Agreed. I’m not seeing the bullying behavior Jack does. The biker attempted to politely inform the Audi driver that he was in a bike only space and almost got run over for his trouble. At the next light, he not so politely calls him an idiot for his terrible driving and gets punched in the face for it.

      I don’t understand why everyone here thinks the cyclist had it coming. Sorry Jack, but getting called a “fucking prick”(to quote the biker) by a single biker for driving illegally and overly aggressive isn’t bullying.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        Bullying may not be correct, but there was nothing polite about the Cyclists behavior. He purposefully got all too close to the car, twice. He could have gestured from where he was. Watch again.

        • 0 avatar
          CRConrad

          “All too close”?

          So now car drivers don’t feel safe enough within their two tons of steel and glass, but need some sort of additional exclusion zone around them?!?

          Sheesh…!

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            If you knew anything about personal security, you wouldn’t have made that comment. Don’t ever let anyone get that close to your vehicle unless you know them. If they do, leave. If you can’t leave, be prepared to use the car as a weapon, and don’t be afraid to push the cars around you out of the way. Also, don’t tailgate if you don’t want to get pushed out of the way from someone doing what I just described.

            Besides that, it was too close for the biker’s own safety. Too close to ensure the cycle didn’t scratch the paint. Too close for civil discourse…

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            Wow, Landcrusher, that comment exhibits such a level of paranoia and sociopathy that I can’t really make any sensible reply to it. Except noting that it feels totally nuts, that is.

            (BTW, I would have guessed you’re a Brit, as opposed to Pch101 [and most posters on here], who sometimes sounded more of a Yank in your exchange with him. But the kind of nuts you’re sounding like here is more of a typical Yank nutjob.)

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            A guy with your mouth really, really, ought to heed this advice. Certainly you owe it to your passengers.

            Just FYI, having had positions of responsibility in both the military and business, I have been tested for the things you are accusing me of, and I assure you I am well within the norms for paranoia and sociopathy. I will keep my non expert opinions of your psychological profile to myself rather than stoop to your level.

            Since you seem to like expert advice, why don’t you stop acting like you know everything and go ask an expert about security and your psych issues. I have nothing else to say to you.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            Landcrusher writes: “A guy with your mouth really, really, ought to heed this advice. Certainly you owe it to your passengers.”

            You see, this is precisely what I’m talking about: It sounds pretty much exactly as if you were saying I might get shot and killed — or at the very least punched in the face — for something I might say. (It also has a whiff of you offering to perform said services, but of course with enough plausible deniability that nobody could swear that this was what you meant.[*])

            I don’t know where you live, but you make it sound like downtown Baghdad, AT BEST. Here in the civilised world where I live, it doesn’t work that way. In America, though, I hear things like that happen (“road rage”, “drive-by shootings”, etc)… and your attitude about “security” also seems to be quite prevalent over there.

            Lot of people say shit like that happens over there because there are so many weapons around (and I admit I’d be more worried about the cyclist here if he’d been in Baghdad in stead of London. Or somewhere in America in stead of London). But pro-gun-ownership Americans counter that “weapons don’t kill people, people do”. And you might be surprised at this from an anti-gun Nanny-state Euro-weenie like me, but I think they’re at least partly right: It’s not just guns, or even people with guns, that kill people, but mindsets. Mindsets like yours: It’s people with both guns and mindsets like yours that kill people. (People without guns, but with mindsets like yours, have to settle for punching people in the face.)

            I do not WANT to heed or learn from your advice; I think it comes from a mindset that makes the world a worse place, not a better one — the escalatory mindset that leads to road rage shootings, in stead of *talking* (or even YELLING) back, when someone yells at you.

            So I think it would be better if YOU tok MY advice in stead, loosened up on your officially-certified-non-paranoid security mindset, and abolished the exclusion zone around your car, etc.

            You and everyone like you. (But, of course, none of you dares go first.)

            .

            “I have nothing else to say to you.”

            Didn’t you say that before already? Promises, promises…

            .

            [*] “Nice joint you got here; be a shame if anything happened to it… (No no, Your Hono[u]r, I just meant I liked the place and would be sad if he’d have to shut it down for any reason! Where else would I get those great cannoli?)”

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      Jack needs to live on a bicycle in city traffic for a few months. Badly. From his writeup, its obvious he: a. Doesn’t have a clue about what it takes to use a bicycle as primary daily transportation, and b. Doesn’t have the slightest interest in learning the skill.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        I’ll late respond to this.

        I have more bicycling miles under my belt than you do, my friend. I’ve had years where I did five thousand miles or more, commuting and doing centuries on a Schwinn Super Sport. I’ve spent months in the hospital from car-hits-bike crashes. My opinion about this incident is based on those miles and those months. I’m sorry it does not match yours.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    Funny thing ~

    Here in La La Land I see lots of inter – vehicle hassles but no one ever talks back to Big Rigs……

    In general I too follow the leave the bigger one alone path , not worth getting run over or killed IMO .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    myheadhertz

    Crazy bike messenger Lucas Brunelle

    In Mexico City:
    youtube.com/watch?v=YSukZ-bogw4

    NYC ‘Drag Race’
    youtube.com/watch?v=vuZsRxuEpZs

    Ice Riding Charles River:
    youtube.com/watch?v=9oQPPs7kPdo

  • avatar
    michal1980

    that biker box thing is a great idea. I mean how smart is it to put the slowest accelerating for of transportation infront of machines that accelerate far far faster.

    Only a well trained politician, or biker douche bag can think of something so brilliant.

    • 0 avatar
      Nick 2012

      I thought the same thing the first time I saw it in London. However it actually works out in central London where no road is straight. Average traffic speed is a few mph and the bikes don’t hold anyone up because there is no where to go.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Remember, this is central London, where no matter how fast your car is you are unlikely to be exceeding 20 mph (and probably not driving safely if you are).

      From 0-20 I’ll put myself on my bike up against any non-aggressively-driven car. If you drive sanely, in a place like central London (which is an environment completely unlike any place most Americans have ever driven), the bikes won’t hold you up at all.

    • 0 avatar
      srh

      First, bikes are often far from the slowest vehicles accelerating from a stoplight, though that A7 could no doubt out-accelerate most.

      Second, despite the first point above, bike boxes are not designed to order vehicular traffic in order of horsepower. They are designed to prevent the ‘right hook’, whereby cyclists are killed by motorists turning right (well, left in the UK I suppose).

      From what I’ve read, there’s not yet enough data to determine whether bike boxes actually do save lives, but that presumably is why they are generally installed on an experimental basis. For example my home town of Portland has perhaps a couple dozen bike boxes among the thousands of intersections.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        If this is true, why have a bike lane at all? The bikes can drive in the center of a lane, and not get hooked, not pass, not share a lane, and follow all the regular rules of the road.

        What, after all, is the need for the box if there is no dedicated lane? It seems to me to be a scheme to promote cycling at the expense of slowing the car traffic rather than maximizing both.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Instead of assuming that there is some conspiracy to destroy your life, you could just read some of the research that led to these things being implemented.

          I don’t know whether they actually work — I gather that Oregon’s experience hasn’t been altogether positive — but there was some research that went into developing the idea.

          The ideas here are to make cyclists more visible to other traffic and to use that increase in safety in order to encourage bicycle usage. The theories behind it make sense.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            Instead of you assuming you have some idea how I think, check your own prejudices.

            The theory behind running over the cyclists to get rid of them are equally valid. Of course, I could try to understand your point, but why be charitable to you after you act so snidely?

            I will stick to my point sense a cyclist is no less visible in the middle of a lane in line than in front of a line. Much of the problems, it seems to me, are caused by cars sharing a lane with bikes while passing. Now, either the cars don’t need to pass, as is claimed, or they are being held up by the slower bikes. Which is it?

            This isn’t one of the many discussions where your side gets to have it both ways. At least I didn’t get the memo this one was added to the list.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Instead of you assuming you have some idea how I think…”

            I don’t have to assume. You’ve made several posts on the subject — should I presume that you didn’t actually believe anything that you said in your previous posts?

            “This isn’t one of the many discussions where your side gets to have it both ways.”

            You have a habit of reading comments that weren’t made.

            I didn’t take a side. I merely pointed out that there was research that went into creating these things, and that they were intended to increase safety — there is no conspiracy to take away your toys.

            I’m frankly skeptical of the idea for a variety of reasons. But unlike you, I don’t assume the worst about those who came up with it, and I’m open to whatever findings may come from the research.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            You are indeed assuming what I believe because I never thought there was a conspiracy to take away my toys. Never posted that there was either. You want to quote something, please do. Otherwise, as usual, you are just reading into comments that you disagree with motivations and beliefs that are not there.

            I will happily defend any statement I have made, if you will only attack one of them by contradiction with some sort of real argument.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You keep referring to this as an effort to punish drivers.

            It’s obviously an effort to reduce injuries and deaths among cyclists, who are also road users. And cyclists have been identified as being vulnerable in car-bicycle crashes, for obvious reasons.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            My point has been that the policy makers seem to think they have to punish drivers to increase riding. Note the point about zero sum game rather than maximizing resources. I never accused anyone of a conspiracy, but if you don’t think there are car haters involved in making and influencing policies you are kidding yourself. Still, the leaders at city hall aren’t trying to take away your car, though some of them really, really want to control how you use it. They all want you to buy one.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I realize that in your worldview, those who disagree with you are out to get you, which leads you to conclude that it’s “punishment.” Hence, my point.

            Again, give the liberals-are-out-to-get-us shtick a rest, and go read the research that led to the creation of these things. It’s the desire to keep what are described as “vulnerable road users” from being killed and hurt that is motivating the effort.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            There you go again. Because I disagree with you, someone must be out to get me? I must be paranoid. No evidence again, just ad hominem.

            And also, I am not making this a blanket liberal issue. Not all liberals hate cars. I suspect most car haters are liberal, but they aren’t even the majority of liberals. OTOH, there does seem to be some strange confusion among liberals in general between intent and outcome. If non liberals intend a good outcome, yet get an imperfect one, then their intentions were evil and so is the policy. At the same time, any claim of good intentions on the part of liberals excuses the results even if the outcome is so predictable as to make the claim of good intention farcical. Maybe it’s not so much liberals as statists in general with this quirk. Much of the righteous pro life crowd has the same problem. They think any zealotry in the cause is good in spite of thirty years of their nonsense resulting in more and more abortions.

            So, to get specific here, I don’t care what their intent was in the end, only the results. Those boxes don’t seem a great idea to me. The defense of them here seems to be that they don’t cause problems because the speeds in the area of the cars and bikes mean they don’t cause the issues i raise, yet if that’s true, then they would be unnecessary. Your objection is that the studies leading to the decision to put them in said they were a good idea, but that’s generally the case whether the studies were good or bad or conducted in good or bad faith. Red light camera studies being an excellent example.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Because I disagree with you…”

            I guess that you didn’t notice that (a) I haven’t taken a position and (b) I’m skeptical that real-world research will ultimately support the idea.

            The difference is that I don’t assume that there is part of some sort of war on drivers. I’m willing to look at the research — why aren’t you?

            “I don’t care what their intent was in the end, only the results.”

            It’s a bit hard to inteligently judge the results, when the idea is still relatively new. At this point, one can only speculate as to how it will ultimately work out.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I almost always disagree with you. You started this exchange accusing me of questioning this scheme out of paranoia. You insist your claim is based on past postings, but now you want to limit my responses to you based on just this thread? Double standard again. Sheesh.

            I’m not looking at the research because I don’t care. For the umpteenth time, I don’t like the resulting policy. Am I not allowed to disagree with the almighty experts and our glorious leaders?

            You may not be able to tell the results, but it’s likely because you got confused by all the egghead papers you read. It might be that it works in the end, and that it’s all rainbows and gummy bears, but if you ask me it’s hair brained and counter sensical rather than counter intuitive.

            Better to create pedestrian areas and put bike lanes and/or trolleys in those and make up for it by speeding up the car routes with policies and designs prohibiting or reducing interaction with pedestrians and pedallers.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I’m not looking at the research because I don’t care.”

            Of course. There’s no reason to allow facts to interfere with your opinions.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            The assumption that this sort of research is factual is farcical. The last study I read from an academic which was paid for by government had been sent back and redone because it did not support the desired outcome of the Democratic Mayor. This level of chutzpah enraged even the normally obsequious lapdogs in the local press.

            The very latest one I read by a traffic engineer described the area for development as it had been at least a year before it’s date, and likely before it was even commissioned. This obfuscation was made to hide the fact that density on the block was already in the process of multiplying over a hundred times in order to squeeze in a well connected builder’s and tenant’s office tower on a street that had already been widened and could not be widened further. Neighboring home owners in a similar situation a few miles away finally won a court battle for damages in a similar situation.

            These guys are about as concerned with facts as the UK climate mafia.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            Being neither of you guys and a priori equally inclined to agree or disagree with either one of you, I note that Landcrusher is coming off as more of a jerk than Pch101.

            “The assumption that this sort of research is factual is farcical.” kind of clinches it. That was Pch’s point to begin with, that Crusher was refusing to read the research and just assuming an ulterior motive. Crusher agitatedly protested this over and over — but is now admitting it.

            Sorry, Landcrusher, by opting out of the fact-based community you’re declaring yourself in the wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            I posted my reasons for not trusting such research. Who wants to live in a world where we decide things based on studies which are easily corrupted and rarely transparent? Not me. If I present a study showing we would all be better off if we took your property and made it public would you just go along? Of course not, so you don’t take these things prima facia either, unless they agree with your prejudices.

            Lastly, given your recent posts, I will take your disapproval of my own posts as evidence I am in the right.

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        micheal,

        In European and Asian nations where commuting by bicycle in city centers is considered not only normal, but desirable, there’s been a lot of study on how bikes and lorries and cars share the road effectively, with optimal traffic patterns being the goal.

        Bike boxes are placed at the front of the stoplight queue and are normally given a lead light — ahead of the cars and trucks. A head start, so to speak. This allows the intersection to safely clear, gets the cyclists ahead of the cars and out of the way, over to the bike line, and then allows the cars to proceed unhindered.

        It works very well when everyone cooperates and abides by the rules as they were designed. To see bike-car interaction at its finest, you can witness it first-hand once your visa and airline ticket are in hand. I suggest starting in Belgium.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Most systems work well when everyone abides by the rules. Systems are not properly judged by that standard.

          What actually happens is what should be judged. If it really is all well in good then that’s great. Perhaps the Audi driver here is a big outlier? If so, why the reaction from the cyclist? He seems to have a pet peeve about this.

          Also, there does not seem to be a bike light to let them go first here. And, if there was, then the system would be slowing traffic rather than speeding it up wouldn’t it?

          • 0 avatar
            Domestic Hearse

            Without getting into the politics for or against, it should be noted that with the expensive taxes and tolls levied on drivers entering London (and most major European cities for that matter), the intended result is to encourage bicycle commuting or mass transit. The logic here is quite simple: economies of space and the desire to improve air quality. A businessman in a 2.5 ton Audi takes up quite a bit more space — to drive, to park — and emits more pollution than his co-worker who arrives to the office on his/her bike.

            As such, most European cities, like London, have car-bike systems which work, millions and millions of times per day, flawlessly. Many of these systems are inclined to favor the bicyclist over the car driver for safety reasons and for reasons I stated above (encouraging bike and mass transit options).

            This entire incident is outlier.

            Without knowing any of the specifics of that particular road, on that particular day, at that particular time, I cannot speculate whether or not the bikes-go-first light was A) functioning correctly, B) not engaged due to traffic-flow or time-of-day C) even exists at this particular intersection. It could be such that the lights along the entire block are timed so that the traffic flow is subject to stop-and-go, and therefore would not exceed the speed of an average bicyclist.

            Without knowing the specifics of the offended cyclist, I have no idea if A) he’s just a hot-headed thug by nature, B) he just caught his wife in bed with his groundskeeper that morning, C) was recently in a car-bike accident and is a suffering from more than a little PTSD, D) caught his wife in bed with the man in the Audi.

            What I do know: This entire article posting has click-baited every bike-vs-car argument that’s waged daily on car and/or bike blogs in the U.S.

            Without even knowing the first thing about — indeed, never even having visited — countries and cities where cyclists and drivers coexist happily every single day, and instead, applying our North American biases and experiences, we rush to display our lack of understanding of how the rest of the world works. And it works very well, thank you very much, all while doing without the laughably childish Rambo bluster and bravado found throughout the comments here.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The mayor of London, a political conservative, is a vocal proponent of increasing cycling there.

            If he was in the US, he would probably be labeled as a RINO and a communist. That’s just how we roll here.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            If here, he would be a Democrat most likely would he not?

            See my earlier post about encouraging riding versus discouraging driving.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      No, its a constant remind to self-centered car drivers that those bicycles are your (legal) traffic equals. And if it slows them down a bit, BFD.

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    Right turn Clyde.

  • avatar
    Nick 2012

    I’m worried the Daily Mail is now being used as a TTAC source ;)

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    I’m a cyclist (and obviously a driver too) and I’ll admit that there are LOTS of asshat cyclists on the roads. Especially when they ride in large packs. I only wish the cops would enforce the laws, but sadly they usually look the other way when it comes to cyclists not following the rules of the road.

    • 0 avatar
      -Nate

      I’m a Motocyclist FWIW and I live near the Rose Bowl in Pasadena where the @$$hats on bicycles regularly run over Children and Old Folks out walking , hassle and intimidate the joggers and dog walkers , run stop signs en masse and worse .

      They ride in large packs of 60 or more .

      I also know some ex bicycle Delivery Men who occasionally have huge group rides late at night through downtown L.A. , also running red lights but not deliberately hassling anyone .

      I fear they’ll get T – Boned or run over by irate cabbie like I did on my Moto , it’s not fun being a cripple , let me tell you .

      -Nate

      • 0 avatar
        Tinker

        >@$$hats on bicycles regularly run over
        >Children and Old Folks out walking , hassle and
        >intimidate the joggers and dog walkers , run stop
        >signs en masse and worse.

        So, what are children and old folks doing in the middle of the road?

        And aren’t bicyclists forbidden on the sidewalks, as obviously dangerous to pedestrian traffic? Or are you writing from a space of total delusion?

        Bicyclists are dangerous to pedestrians, just as drivers are dangerous to bicyclists. So, maybe YOU are an asshat to a bicyclist.

        • 0 avatar
          Landcrusher

          Pedestrians are still allowed to cross the road at crosswalks. Since the cyclists like to run reds, I suspect this is an opportunity for conflict. His post is not delusional. Have you ever seen one of the CM mobs in action? Seen one of the indestructible riders who thinks he will miss those pedestrians with his instant reflexes as he cuts across a corner lot?

          Bicycles on busy roads mostly use sidewalks in Houston. It’s not a problem due to pedestrians being rare on those roads. The inner loop area is getting much more walkable though, so I predict problems. The biggest issue here has been bike lanes in stupid places to get funds and bragging rights. They were rarely if ever used because there were better routes a few blocks away through residential areas with no lights and fewer cars. Meanwhile, the lost lanes backed up traffic.

        • 0 avatar
          -Nate

          @Tinker ~ speaking of ‘delusional’ =8-) So, what are children and old folks doing in the middle of the road?

          “And aren’t bicyclists forbidden on the sidewalks, as obviously dangerous to pedestrian traffic? Or are you writing from a space of total delusion?

          Bicyclists are dangerous to pedestrians, just as drivers are dangerous to bicyclists. So, maybe YOU are an asshat to a bicyclist.”

          Obviously you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about (typical with bullies and jerkoffs) but I do as I’m there often , you’ve clearly _NEVER_ been there .

          There are NO SIDEWALKS but there is a very wide road and it gets filled nearly curb to curb with actual @$$hats (presumptuous jerks like YOU) riding bikes , knocking down Seniors and kids as well as the regular folks just out walking .

          People have to walk along the pavement edge .

          The Cyclists _ALWAYS_ run every stop sign and violate EVERY right of way there is and there are quite a few of them , never less than 60 and often more than 100 .

          I used to ride a bicycle too and I never , _EVER_ acted like an @$$hat you want to emulate , partly because I’m not an ignorant fool who’s dick is *so* tiny I need to compensate by acting a fool in public and partly because I was hit by cars fairly often and common sense tells all but the brain dead and retarded , you cannot win against a TWO TON VEHICLE .

          Carrying a gun sound like fun but again reality intrudes , you can’t ” draw down ” when you’re lying on the pavement bleeding and looking at your femur poking through your skin .

          EVERYBODY need to wake up a bit and

          A. try to observe the rules of the road

          B. stop acting like spoiled children when you’re on a Bicycle ~ you DO NOT deserve the entire lane or road and demanding it means you don’t value your own life very much .

          Me , I have no problem slowing down and drifting across the center line to pass a group (_any_ group) when it’s safe but blocking the entire road , is stupid , way beyond just foolish as they often bring little kids along in the rear Bicycle seat , this endangers the child as well as teaching them to be life’s losers .

          -Nate

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        “I fear they’ll get T – Boned or run over by irate cabbie like I did on my Moto , it’s not fun being a cripple , let me tell you .”

        This happened to you? Wow

  • avatar
    vvk

    Wow, I am so glad I don’t live there.

    Cyclist got what he deserved, no question.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    On a side note….those LED DRLs look different than the A7 here in the states. I see a small upturn near the middle that just looks weird for some reason.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    This should happen more often to prick bicyclists. They always seem to have a huge amount of attitude.

    I certainly wouldn’t call that bullying on the driver’s part. Is it because it’s a semi-expensive car that there should be outrage? More class warfare?

    Who cares if the Audi creeped into the “bike box”, did that really warrant escalating a situation?

    The guy on the bicycle thought he was going to inspire some sort of gang beatdown, but he quickly fled when he saw his comrades heading for the hills.

    • 0 avatar

      Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you feel bicyclists are pricks to you because to them, you are a prick?

      And that was absolutely bullying on the driver’s part. What purpose did it serve for him to pull partly into the opposing lane and beyond an ASL into a bike box just to put the hammer down in rush hour traffic to race to a stop at the next stop light? What possible benefit was there except to piss off the cyclists who are rightfully using the bike box as it was designed?

      • 0 avatar
        jacob_coulter

        I love how you’re trying to defend these asshats that think they’re cops. The guy on the bike had it coming, if someone is not following the rules of the road, it’s not your job to be some sort of road vigilante. When someone improperly uses their turn signal, I don’t get out of my car and try to start a fight.

        The bike punk bit off more than he could chew. The driver was completely in the right to knock him on the street.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Actually, he does a far better job of defending the cyclist’s point of view than you do of the driver’s. His argument includes some inclusion of rules of the road and valid questions about why the Audi driver was creeping into the bike box to begin with. Yours is no better than: “Yell at driver? Driver get MAD! Driver PUNCH! Driver right”

          I’m going to reserve judgement because I don’t know anything about British road law or what exactly was said between the cyclist and the motorist prior to the fight. The cyclist may have had it coming; I wouldn’t race down and yell at a motorist that way and not expect to get hit. The driver may be complete swine. Probably both.

          • 0 avatar
            jacob_coulter

            The traffic laws have nothing to do with what happened here, I’m assuming the driver made an error. So what?

            If I’m a pedestrian walking a crosswalk and a driver’s front tire slowly enters, I don’t go over to the car and start screaming at him, then chase him down and try to incite a fight with a group of people.

            This was all about the bicycle rider’s ego, he tried to thump his chest but instead got thumped on the pavement.

            You don’t get in someone’s face like that unless you want to fight, the driver actually tried to avoid a situation by just driving away, but the bicyclist wanted his pound of flesh. Instead he got humiliated.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            JC: “The traffic laws have nothing to do with what happened here, I’m assuming the driver made an error.”

            What an absolutely idiotic assumption!

            The traffic laws have everything to do with what happened here: The Audi driver broke them.

            And it certainly looked like he did that quite deliberately; far from any “error”.

  • avatar

    Mr. Baruth, your characterization of this situation is laughable and shows how utterly biased you are against bicyclists (sneaking in that bit about you once-upon-a-time being a cyclists hardly exonerates you in this instance). The entire incident was instigated by the driver of the Audi being impatient and doing something that he is prohibited from doing by law. You then classify the action of the cyclists as being “typical “Critical Mass” behavior when I only saw one cyclists getting pissed because driver of the Audi pulled a mildly hard launch with said cyclist still just a matter of inches from the door.

    Perhaps it has been a while since you’ve spent any time commuting on a bicycle in a city, especially one as crowded as London during rush hour. Tempers flare and people get impatient, but at no point should physical violence be justified as a solution. I think you should take a hard look at your rather absurd misrepresentation of the facts of this incident and maybe spend a week commuting by bicycle to see just how difficult it really is these days.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      Nice try, but I commuted by bicycle for years in situations ranging from deep rural to downtown. I’ve been hit by cars three times and a truck once. I’ve spent a total of nine months incapacitated due to those injuries, including half a year with a broken second cervical. I’ve been involved in nearly every kind of drama with a motorist possible including an out-of-the-car confrontation like this one.

      For twenty years of my life I did almost nothing but ride and race bicycles. Short of career NYC bike messengers, I doubt anybody has anything they could tell me I haven’t seen myself. Sorry about that.

      • 0 avatar

        If such is the case, then why the hate for the cyclist, who was clearly endangered by the idiot actions of the Audi driver? Why all the characterization of the cyclist as being aggressive, but not the same characterization of the car driver?

        If you have had such bad experiences yourself, why not take a more nuanced view of the situation instead of villifying the cyclist? This whole piece was rather one-sided in its assessment and that the Audi driver deserves a lot more blame for instigating than you bother to note.

        It is articles like this that fuel the “cars own the road” mentality that prevents the US from implementing strategies for road use that would actually make everyone happier in the long-run.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          Seriously? Endangered because the car pulled up next to him in the “bike box?” Ladies & gents, I think we have a winner! Bicycle paranoia!

          Now, if the car had made a turn in front of the bicycle, that would be endangerment. But I didn’t see that happen.

          • 0 avatar

            The endangering came in when the driver sped off while still positioned within inches of the cyclist. Pulling into the box was confrontational and unnecessary.

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            “The endangering came in when the driver sped off while still positioned within inches of the cyclist. Pulling into the box was confrontational and unnecessary.”

            I believe you have the A7 confused with the Gadgetmobile. Unlike the Gadgetmobile, the A7 is incapable of lateral movement. They can go forward, reverse, and even turn in an arc once in motion, but cannot move laterally under their own power. So if you’re ever beside an A7 with the front wheels pointed ahead and you hear it begin to accelerate, there’s no need to panic. This applies to most vehicles on the road.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          There’s stupid behavior: the A7 entering the box.

          There’s confrontational behavior: screaming into the window and making threatening gestures.

          That’s my issue. I’ve had relatively calm discussions with motorists and cyclists in the past that were productive. The biker could have tapped on the window and said, “Come on, man, you’re in the box.” Problem solved.

          • 0 avatar
            iMatt

            To some, myself included, being pushed around by some bozo in his car is viewed as threatening and confrontational behavior as well.

          • 0 avatar

            Seems like at the 30 second mark, the cyclist did just that and was calmly noting to the driver than he was in the bike box. The driver escalated by aggressively driving off while still positioned within inches of the cyclist.

            The screaming starts after that.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            iMatt,

            The A7 moved into an empty spot in the box. He didn’t “push” anybody out of the way.

            He had no right to be in the box, so he should be cited. That’s the extent of the “justice” required.

            That’s my opinion, of course, and yours is likely to differ. I think the minute that we say, as a society, that it’s okay for the mob to punish perceived infractions, we’ve basically set our course for the modern South Africa, where drivers who hit pedestrians face death at the hands of mobs.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Audi driver was positioning himself to pass on the wrong side of the road when the light turned green.

            That was aggressive behavior, without a doubt. The whole point of the box is to prevent that very sort of driving.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            PCH, don’t mean to be stalking you here, I promise. However, you seem to be stretching the language to make your case. While the Audi may be said to be driving aggressively, I don’t think we can conclude his aggression is aimed at the biker when he pulls up. He may, at this point, be in a hurry and making a bad choice. I agree with your point about what we don’t know about the exchange of words.

            IMO, the Audi driver starts it by encroaching (assuming the rider didn’t start the fight at the previous light which is believable given the combo of class hate and Audi hate present in the UK). The biker then escalates it by moving his bike, and then escalates again by pulling up at the second light. We might excuse the Audi driver for jetting off, but the punch is over the line for sure. No one should be proud of their behavior in the encounter.

            Still, the problem created by the bike box is that the cars are legally blocked at the light and if attacked, cannot escape. I can push a car In front of me and play bumper cars to get away from or hit an attacker if I am surrounded by cars, but I can’t do that to cyclists in the box who may be bystanders rather than part of the attack. OTOH, most security details would run over the bikes and not be aggressively prosecuted in the end. I wonder how many riders think about that when the limo pulls up.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I don’t think we can conclude his aggression is aimed at the biker when he pulls up.”

            Of course we can. The cyclists there were at the greatest risk of being harmed by the aggressive driving.

          • 0 avatar
            Landcrusher

            So, those at greatest risk of others actions should naturally assume it’s directed at them? Now you are just being silly.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            JB: “There’s confrontational behavior: screaming into the window … The biker could have tapped on the window and…”

            Since the people in the Audi didn’t open the window, they wouldn’t have been able to hear a normal conversational voice over the din of the traffic, now would they?

        • 0 avatar
          CRConrad

          Why, why, why, you ask?

          Simple: For the clicks.

    • 0 avatar
      MK

      EWB, do you live in the UK?
      You sound just like a lot of the folks I worked with there, I agree it is NOT the USA and social mores regarding bikes and public spaces is quite different in old blighty.
      But then again it’s not the ‘bike is right’ culture of Netherlands nor the ‘good luck, hope you have life insurance’ Atlanta environment. I will say that downtown London is not particularly well layed out for bike traffic but they’ll probably restrict it further before long.

      Honestly I didn’t see a Critical Mass incident like the NY motorcycle/Range rover incident either, but I did see one self-righteous wanna be do-gooder on a bike rush to write checks with his mouth that he couldn’t cash.

      The “incident” as trivial and pointless as it was, was completely OVER when the car sped away. Done. Nobody harmed, nobody affected.
      But the guy on the bike let his emotions take over and he escalated the situation when he just “had to” go tell that “prick” what he had done wrong by driving into “my” box on the road. You can see the righteous indignation as he pedals furiously to catch up to the car.
      That was dumb and emotionally immature and he got a smack upside the head for it. Coulda been much worse.

      The car passenger was in the wrong too but I guarantee you nothing would’ve happened if the guy on the bike had kept his mouth shut.

      Basically just a couple of guys being dickheads, nothing really to see here and no larger social commentary needed.

      If you’re gonna be dumb, you’d better be tough.

      • 0 avatar

        The incident was not over when the car sped away. Speeding away in the manner that he did, with the cyclist still as close to the car as he was, just escalated the situation. And I do not see a wannnabe do-gooder, I see a guy who feels like his life was just endangered by the actions of the driver.

        Should he have let it go? Probably. But when your heart rate is already elevated and the adrenaline is pumping, rational thought tends to take a back seat to emotions. Unless you’ve been in that kind of situation before, it is really hard to judge the actions of others.

        I do agree that it is a couple of guys being dickheads, but it was elevated to social commentary by Mr. Baruth when he chose to characterize the situation in such a way as to lay the bulk of the blame on the cyclist without balancing the issue with equal blame on the motorist for instigating the incident in the first place.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          “Rational thought tends to take a back seat to emotions” You betcha. That’s how people get killed in motor vehicles.

          If you can’t control your adrenaline, etc. take the bus . . . and see if you can do it without getting into a fight with a passenger who accidentally steps on your toe.

        • 0 avatar
          05lgt

          forgiving one party because his blood was hot while vilifying the other party because he responded to his adrenal rush simply marks you as a partisan. Choosing a user name in the plural marks you as delusionally believing you speak for many without thier consent. Good thing you’re powerless.

          • 0 avatar

            Any worse than what Mr. Baruth did in the first place by villifying the rider without equal villification of the driver?

            Plus, no where did I say that the cyclist should be forgiven, just that the driver should be granted equal or more blame for instigating the situation in the fist place.

            And the user name in the plural is because I represent one half of a pair in a collaboration, but you can choose to jump to conclusions and believe I am delusional if you so wish.

  • avatar
    redliner

    One thing I learned as a motorcyclist…

    It’s not about who’s right, it’s about who’s alive. As a motorcyclist, you will always be at the mercy of the operator of the two ton machine. The sooner you figure out that your “rights” as a rider bear no relationship to reality, the sooner you can become a safer rider.

    Only once have I felt the need to get off my motorcycle and personally confront someone in traffic about their driving, and I didn’t shout insults at them through the window. I calmly informed them that what they had just done very nearly caused an accident which could have killed me and to please be more careful. The driver apologized profusely, and that was it.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Many pedestrians and cyclists in my town need to figure that out too.

    • 0 avatar
      IHateCars

      You’re lucky…judgeing by the majority of responses here, you deserve to be punched or shot for advising a driver that they were driving unsafely….how dare you!

      I find it sickening how intolerant and entitled people are becoming. I’m of the opinion that as a car driver, you should be extra diligent/observant of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Why? Because you’re in a bigger heavier vehicle that can easily kill, that should be a responsibility of every driver. This dipsh!t in the Audi pulling into the bike box was wrong…plain and simple. It amazes me that people would argue otherwise.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Road rage of any sort is never a good thing. I find this behavior very immature and this incident did not need to happen. Both parties could do with a bit of attention from the law and donate some cash to the authorities.

  • avatar
    3Deuce27

    Well, a post like this says much about the poster and commentors.

    Expressing vocal displeasure, is not commensurate of a physical assault which could result in injury, severe injury, permanent injury, or death. No way you can justify that kind of behavior. If that had happened to me, I would have beat the crap out of the moron and then filed assault charges against him. We are not cartoon or movie characters that can give or absorb physical assault with impunity.

    I was gifted with a powerful body. In no way did that give me the right to physically intimidate or assault anyone. I have never started a fight or lost one.

    My brother a life long avid bike rider, who is my physical opposite, faced one to many jerks jumping out their cars or were threatening with their vehicle. He finally got his carry license and the last guy that jumped out of car and threatened him, got a face full of stainless steel. As my brother said, laughing, ‘you never saw a person have such and instantaneous attitude change’. He was able to laugh about it way after the fact, but the whole incident made him sick, as it could have been a life changing situation. And as he says ‘if the guy had known him, it would have never happened’. We are after all, each others brothers and sisters.

    I personally don’t believe in the need to carry a personal weapon, but then, even at my advanced age, I still have a physical presence that probably gives pause, too most.

    Regarding the cyclists… As I have told young men for years… ‘More men have died from what comes out of their mouths, then what goes in it.’ But, that shouldn’t silence you, just be respectful.

    We are such a vindictive, punishing society. We need to grow the fuck up.

    I hope you were playing the devils advocate, Jack, looking for click bait.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      Tre,

      Forget that it’s YOU in the car. What if it were your mother, or sister? My experience with “activist” cyclists is that a big tough guy in a car doesn’t get any hassle. It’s women and old people and people with families.

      I’m not that big or tough but I’ve never had a cyclist yell at me. Of course, that could be because I generally give them all the room and courtesy I wish cagers had given me when I was riding :)

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Assuming this story is true and not the usual Internet macho bullshit, your brother is lucky to be alive and if he wants to live a long life, he should leave his “stainless steel” at home. Legally speaking (a) he had no justification for threatening lethal force and therefore committed an assault and (b) when threatened with lethal force, a person is legally justified in responding with lethal force. Ask Trayvon Martin how that worked out for him.

      Just imagine if this “car bully” had a carry license and was packing. He would be within his rights to draw and fire . . . and ask questions later. Or suppose he was well-trained in the martial arts and grabbed your “wimpy” brother’s arm that had the gun and slammed him to the ground, breaking a few bones in the process. It is very dangerous to pull a gun on someone at close range, unless you shoot immediately.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    It´s not ok to hit people, but the cyclist was out looking for trouble an he found it.
    I just hope he learned something. Next driver he yells at could step out with a knife or worse.
    I use my bicycle almost every day, and you should treat cars like mooses;
    Be prepared for the worst.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    I expect the Hillary administration to further piggy-back on the US obesity epidemic and give these swarming pests even more political power here than they’ve so far managed to accrue by being media-savvy geeks and hipsters.

    Because you didn’t see any fat people in Mao’s China.

    Well, except for Mao.

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    Jack, you certainly got a bit too excited by this video, what’s with the bike gangs, etc. But I forgive you – I would too if I were on your meds cocktail.

    So the single righteous biker learned some street lessons. Don’t f with a heavily tinted expensive German car in London. Don’t try to see who’s inside – that’s why they tinted it, dumbass. So the guard of, most likely, some Russian money bag, came out and disposed of the biker. Good job, I say!

    I am not even going to get into the whole riding-in-wool-coat-on-road-bike-with-skinny-tires-in-the-city rant. I will just continue to make fun of them as they weave around the potholes that my mountain bike does not even notice while I ride in my big city.

  • avatar
    shaker

    After a bit of “soul” searching (on the assumption that I *have* one), I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re all in too big of an “F’in” hurry.

    We view our chosen mode of transportation as some sort of “time machine”; it’s main use being that we can do all of the things that we need and prefer to do aside from our work until the last minute – then we hop in/on our vehicles and hope to make up the time so we won’t be late.

    Thus, OUR priorities outweigh those of others, who have likely placed themselves in the very same state of mind; “I’m LATE — get out of my way!”

    Personally, I have a very short commute, so I rarely have issues with slow traffic, unless I’ve waited until I’m guaranteed to be late if the slightest delay confronts me.

    If we all gave ourselves a built-in 15-minute “buffer” of time (in other words, leave EARLY for where you have to go), then a frantic commute, with all of the aggressive maneuvering and potential confrontations would be reduced.

    It’s funny, because cars are so chock-full of infotainment and communication options these days that we still strive to spend as little time as possible behind the wheel instead of leaving early and enjoying some tunes while we drive from light to light, same as all of the other poor fools.

    Build in the “buffer” both ways (30 minutes per day) if you possibly can, and see what happens.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Agreed, I’ll confess to a bit of “rush driving” myself from worrying about being late, that and all of the slow drivers where I live.

      I think its the countless stoplights that get peoples patience in some areas, where I live in St Charles MO its a mess.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    “It’s not about who’s right, it’s about who’s alive.”
    +1

    As my brother-in-law, who is an avid motorcyclist, says:
    Newton’s motion laws take precedence over traffic laws.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    What is it with riding completely blacked out? All black clothes, gear, etc. They’re definitely not doing themselves a favour. And seems to reek of “Go ahead, cripple me. I might be a vegetable, but I will own your A$$!!!”.

    I don’t think they even make a completely blacked out bike. I don’t have a problem with bicyclists except when the don’t follow simple rules of the road and then go all crazy insane when you almost hit them. I can’t run red lights and stop signs. I can’t drive my truck on the sidewalk and crosswalk against traffic.

    It’s not my job to expect them to suddenly appear where I don’t expect them. Too many cyclist must have a death wish. Or stup!d. Or both.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    The way I see it at least no one got run over, you can get up from a punch.

    Plus, the bicyclists are fortunate to even have a box, out in St Louis theres some trails, but by large you’re expected to share the roads with clumsy impatient distracted drivers.

    Plus sometimes a guy just needs is a good hook to the head.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    NOt sure I agree that there was a bike mob on this guy. I agree that the cyclist over-reacted by the car’s slight incursion into the “bike box” and over-reacted again by chasing the car down and venting some more spleen.

    it did not seem to me, however, that the motorist was justified in punching out the cyclist.

    I’m glad I read the entire thread because I was wondering what the purpose of the bike box was. Even knowing that, I think, as this incident proves, it’s not a good idea to create a situation where all of the relatively slow cyclists cluster up at the front of a stoplight and then create a rolling roadblock thereafter. Sure, a competent cyclist can do 20 mph, which is probably the average speed of a motorist in that part of the city. But, there are plenty of cyclists who will do only 10 mph. So, the cars have to sit behind them, too?

    Dumb idea.

    We have increasing numbers of bike lines here in The Capital of the Free World. I think that’s a much better idea, and if there are major streets that need more travel lanes to make room for cars and bikes, then get rid of street parking on those streets. Parked/parking cars are a hazard to everyone, especially cyclists.

    There seem to be a lot of people in cars and on bikes who view the trip to work as some sort of competitive thing. With respect, they need to take a chill and adjust their attitude. Getting to work in traffic is a cooperative thing. If everyone cooperates, everyone gets there more quickly.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “it’s not a good idea to create a situation where all of the relatively slow cyclists cluster up at the front of a stoplight and then create a rolling roadblock thereafter.”

      That isn’t the idea. The idea is to make cyclists visible at the intersection while waiting for the light. Once the light turns green and they get through the intersection, then the slower ones can move back toward the curb.

      Visibiliity is considered to be a problem with bicycle safety — the data would suggest cyclists get hit because drivers don’t see them. It’s harder not to see them when they’re at the front of the lane.

      • 0 avatar
        Domestic Hearse

        As I said above, the “bike box” works exactly as PCH describes. In most European nations, the cyclists in the box, ahead of the queue of cars and lorries get a lead light. In essence, a head start. They go first, clear the intersection (where most car-bike accidents happen), and then slide over to the bike lane once they’ve moved through the intersection. Then the stoplight for the cars turns green, and they, too, clear the intersection unimpeded.

        It’s a very good system in countries where moving about city centers is not only common, but desirable. A lot of study and trial and error have gone into what works best. And when everyone abides by the laws and uses some common sense, works very well, indeed.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        The cyclists are easier to see at the front of the line why? They are easier to see when they are in the center of the lane and wearing visible gear, certainly.

        The rules have historically been that a bike should behave on the road as if it were a car. That worked for bikes and horses when the cars didn’t outnumber them so. Was it ever thought to get people in these city centers to simply go back to that sort of arrangement? If the speed limit is 20 mph, wouldn’t that work without all this silliness?

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “The rules have historically been that a bike should behave on the road as if it were a car.”

          As it turns out, that may not have been a particularly good idea.

          In Europe, busy intersections tend to be managed by moving one type of traffic at a time, i.e. you get the pedestrians through, then make them wait while car traffic proceeds.

          In the US, we tend to move common directions of mixed traffic at the same time. That reduces the wait time for cars, but mixes different types of traffic together, which are moving at different speeds and that may conflict with each other.

          The US approach works well in much of the US because virtually is in a car; there’s not much need to wait for pedestrians, etc. who aren’t there. But that isn’t the case in Europe.

          The bike boxes effectively treat pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles as three different classes, each with different needs and limitations. Since you don’t want the bicycles on the sidewalk, they need to be in the street. But the streets can be lethal, which creates a need for traffic management.

  • avatar
    iMatt

    If you were walking on the sidewalk and were almost clipped by a passing cyclist who obviously couldn’t give two fucks about your safety, what would you do should you catch up with him at the next light?

    Would you stand there quietly waiting for the light to change or would you give him a piece of your mind?

    Be careful though, because if there are other pedestrians present, it might be interpreted as a gang assault or whatever the fuck you’re calling it!

    Most of you would probably say walking is for chumps it seems lol.

    P.s, you asked what I would think if it was my mother or sister in the car? Thankfully I don’t have to worry about that because I know they don’t drive like aggressive douchebags.

    • 0 avatar
      quasimondo

      Even as a “cager,” I’ve had more than a few close calls by drivers who were distracted, thought they could make the intersection before the light changes, or are just bad drivers. Now, I’d love to chase them down to give them a piece of my mind, but following that driver after the incident has occured would be a classic case of road rage, and if the situation were to escalate to where one of us found ourselves in an ambulance, or worse, the meat wagon, it would be completely my fault as I refused to let the situation go.

      That bicyclist unnecessarily escalated the situation by chasing that car down just so he could continue his verbal assault against that driver. In that bicyclist’s case, he was better off letting the car go. He would’ve saved his jaw.

  • avatar
    Slow_Joe_Crow

    As a cyclist, I’ll point out that the car driver was an asshat for horning into the bike box and buzzing the bikes, so he could get tho the next red light 1/2 a second sooner. The cyclist was a fool to push the issue beyond the initial remonstration.
    Anecdotally I have had more close calls with assholes in cars almost killing me on my bike than I had cyclists doing dumb stuff in front of my car so I lean towards the driver being at fault.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    There’s a web site listing inmates in London’s Old Bailey “gaol”, going back to the early 1800s. I noticed, looking through it once, that the penalty for theft of what were/are trivial amounts of cash, was often hanging, as in, by the neck until dead. The Euros have tried to stamp out capital punishment, but before charging anybody for anything, I’d have to look at the penalties involved, just to make sure.

  • avatar
    Jacob

    On a tight London street, the car goes over maybe a foot of “bicycle box” area. Big deal. That bicyclist was a bit nuts to get so vocal and upset about that. I am surprised and glad that the car driver had the balls to go outside and punch the whinny bicyclist. I had biked to and from work every work day for seven years, so I don’t mean disrespect to all bicyclists, but sometimes they are nuts.

  • avatar
    CRConrad

    JB: “Are they thinking that they would prosecute for the offense of “entering the box”? They have evidence for it now.”

    Yup. So they could. And should. Why shouldn’t they?

    JB: “Surely, even in Cool Britannia one has the right to drive down the street without being screamed at in a threatening fashion by black-clad anonymous bikers.”

    Was the guy in the Audi any less “anonymous” — I didn’t see him stop to introduce himself before throwing the punch; did you? Or is it a crime to wear black nowadays? Sure, the assailant wore lighter shades; does that make him a knight in shining armour, or is it just that he can do that because he’s sheltered from spattering dirt inside the car?

    And no, one does not have even a moral right to drive in an illegal and potetntially life-threatening fashion and expect not to be told off for it.

    JB: “Sadly, I suspect it’s the actual punch for which they’d be willing to prosecute.”

    Yeah, well, what with that actually being assault, and all, it stands to reason.

    JB: “Which makes the London Metropolitan Police no better at unraveling a crime/punishment situation than my fourth-grade Catholic-school teacher, who would frequently punish me for finishing a situation started by another student. I never got the knack of doing that stuff when her back was turned.”

    So are you saying the cyclist punched the Audi driver, only that didn’t get caught on film? If not, then you’re talking bullshit. (Probably intentionally, for the clicks.)

    And if you went around punching people in the face when they’d “started a situation” by NOT punching you in the face, then hooray for your teacher, who did exactly the right thing!

    JB: “I have very little issue placing the blame for the confrontation on the cyclist.”

    Then you’re being a fuckwit. (Probably intentionally, for the clicks.)

    JB: “Yeah, the Audi driver was in the box. No, he wasn’t impeding or threatening any bikers. To the contrary, he wanted to get around them and out of their way.”

    You mean he wanted them out if HIS way. To the extent that he illegally encroached on their space, and YES, potentially impeded and endangered them.

    JB: “He didn’t want to drive down the road behind a clump of road-hogging bikes. This is a legitimate if perhaps intemperate goal.”

    In traffic, you’re stuck behind whomever you’re stuck behind. Overtaking them by driving where it’s illegal for you to drive can hardly be “legitimate”, since it is illegal.

    Sheesh, Jack. I know you need the clicks to make a living, but how fucking low will you stoop for them?

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      I don’t make my living doing this.

      What you got was my honest opinion as a former professional cyclist and bike commuter.

      • 0 avatar
        CRConrad

        Your “honest opinion” — really, Jack? Since your response was a bit short on specifics, I’m not sure how to take that:

        * Are you saying it’s your honest opinion that the guy in the car was less anonymous than the one on the bike?

        * Or that in your honest opinion anonymity somehow disqualifies one from criticising someone’s driving? (In that case, are you of the honest opinion that having been introduced is enough, or does one have to be acquainted for a while?)

        * And shall we take it as given, then, that in your honest opinion it’s OK to punch people in the face even when you’ve NOT been introduced, since you did NOT chastise the face-puncher for HIS anonymity?

        * And is it really your honest opinion that people in lighter-coloured clothes are allowed to do what they want, and people in darker clothes just get to suck it up — or was that just the logical consequence of your writing so as to smear the cyclists as some kind of hipster mob?

        No, obviously NONE OF THE ABOVE is your “honest opinion”. And yet, that’s pretty much exactly what you wrote. How come? Hey, you’re not fooling old fans like me: You yourself have repeatedly joked about what a huge “click-whore” you are. And unless you really want to claim the absurd talking points your post boils down to are your “honest opinion”, click-whoring is obviously what you were doing here. But, hey, click-whoring, whether for a living or as a hobby, is what the Intertubes are all about!

        So that is really not what I’m criticising here. All I’m saying is it needs to be done with a bit of class. Ugly click-whoring is just, well, UGLY, like any ugly whoring. And here, Vodka McBigBra was coming off a bit more like a washed-up crack-whore, than Julia Roberts in _Pretty Woman_. I know you can do better!

        All I’m asking for is more Vodka Julia, and less of this their most unfortunate sister, please.

        Thank you!

        • 0 avatar
          grinchsmate

          I know I’m very late but I want to say you have nailed this one.

          No thinking person can watch that video and see a critical mass situation, it has to be bait. But then we all know Baruth is a master baiter.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India