Ok so this video of anger and rage has gone viral. Predictably the driver is deemed to be to blame even though the whole incident was precipitated by the cyclist. Let's face it, it was all just handbags. No-one was assaulted and no one was injured.
What precipitated this? Well if you see the un-clipped version of the video, shown here, it starts with several cyclists dominating the carriageway, passing each other, and dictating their speed on other road users. Isn't it interesting that when cyclists pass each other fairly fast and close, they're not being 'impatient' but when a driver does it because his potential speed loss is even greater, he's impatient? Part of the reason for all this are two stupid and subjective rules. The first is that cyclists are officially told by the DfT to use their own person to prevent motor vehicles from passing them. A principle clearly being applied here. See the rule here. See more on that here. The other is an absolutely nonsensical subjective HighWay Code rule 163 See I explain why it's nonsense here.
So basically cyclists are being told that they have supremacy over anyone else and clearly the results of that position is that other road users will get frustrated and annoyed at the resulting cycling conduct.. Then to add insult and injury, to abuse, accost or chide a driver who has executed a pass, 'dangerous' to the perception of the naturally insecure cyclist, is bound to provoke a reaction.
It is just as unnerving when another cyclist passes close at speed too but that seems to be OK. Why? At least you can hear the car there but cyclists are silent and do cause a start when they pass.
Let's get it clear. The passing speed of the car in this was very slow. He was not passing at 50 MPH. So had the cyclist come off, it would mostly be his own speed, and height from the ground that would cause the injury not any direct impact with the passing vehicle. So fast passing cyclists will cause the same reaction and accident injury too.
But if this is so unnerving for cyclists, why keep cycling? Why come up alongside the already aggrieved driver to remonstrate as in this case? (It was during this manouvre that the cyclist struck the mirror by the way) Just let them go. Cycle or don't cycle but don't moan at others because, by definition it is dangerous. 2015 fatals so far
It's not the job of any road user to rebuke others who may well have done nothing wrong. It seems the bravado and even the intent is encouraged by selective, one aspect, head cams. Well I did warn they would cause breach of the peace and so they are. See Head cam vigilantes
The unpalatable fact for cyclists is that they are a road hazard and one that society has no need for. Perhaps if they understood that it's their choice to do it, no-one needs them to, they can pack in and no-one would miss them, their attitude would be more acceptable on the road.
Now see these edited versions by the Daily Telegraph, bleeping out the cyclists, showing them initiating confrontation by rebuke and in one case, even riding like a madman to do so. So Telegraph why do you encourage this? Are cyclists self appointed policemen now?