No excuses

10:21am Saturday 12th January 2013 in Letters By Reader's letter

A FEMALE cyclist, not once but twice, rammed her cycle into my wing mirror in her attempts to pass on the inside as I was in a stationary line of traffic, much to the bemusement of the pedestrians on the pavement.

I hope I am never in such a rush to get to the front of the queue that I feel the need to barge into anything in my way to do so.

Whereas the bike just scratched my car, I would have damaged the bike considerably more if I made such an irresponsible manoeuvre.

This cyclist then sat at the traffic lights two cars ahead of me, probably calculating how much time she had saved.

I was pleasantly surprised that she did wait at the lights, as I fully expected her to disregard those too.

When I then overtook her, she had the decency to turn her head away from me. Before the cycling brigade start, I was at the unfortunate part of the road where there was a chicane, so I was not being obstructive, just abiding by the law of the road.

There are no excuses for deliberately damaging other people’s property.

Angela Brader, Wetwang, York.

Comments(20)

sensationalism says...
3:12pm Sat 12 Jan 13

A chicane just before traffic lights? Does she mean the traffic-calming build-outs, such as Huntington Road, Heslington Lane and elsewhere? They have continuous cycle lanes approaching them and bypassing them.

Without knowing where this took place, it is really hard to visualise why this motorist could not have left a bit of gutter space for cyclists to get past.

Does she drive a road-hogging 4x4 by any chance? They are a b**** menace, blocking the road, blocking other peoples' view ahead.

Report this post »

Mr Happy says...
3:13pm Sat 12 Jan 13

I wonder whether this actually happened as described or whether it's just another anti cycling nutter having a rant in the press.

It's the way she says "cycling brigade" that makes me think this is made up.

Report this post »

yorkshirelad says...
3:59pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Hmm...read carefully and feel the prejudice.

'I was pleasantly surprised that she did wait at the lights'...

'Calculating how much time she'd saved...'

'The unfortunate part of the road where there is a chicane'.

Might I suggest you're not totally neutral on cyclists before this one (allegedly) clonked your mirror?

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
5:09pm Sat 12 Jan 13

DfT Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design para 5.2
5.2.1 Physical traffic calming measures can sometimes create problems for cyclists. In general, measures involving vertical deflection (e.g. humps or cushions) tend to reduce cyclist comfort, while horizontal deflection measures (e.g. buildouts or other road narrowings) are more likely to introduce cycling hazards.
5.2.2 Central reserves, refuges, traffic islands, and buildouts can create pinch points for cyclists which can bring them into conflict with motor vehicles. For example, drivers may attempt to overtake cyclists ahead of the narrowing to avoid being delayed (speed reducing features on the approach can help here). Drivers may also attempt to overtake a cyclist within the narrowed section.

Report this post »

A user says...
5:17pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Regardless of whether you are pro or anti-cycling, this is criminal damage! I would also have been surprised the cyclist waited at the lights following their alleged behaviour. People are alsways in so much of a rush these days!

Report this post »

YorkFella says...
7:21pm Sat 12 Jan 13

If you're pro cycling or pro driving the fact remains that both sides do erratic things. I have seen many a cyclist go through red lights, lean on cars, cut cars up etc, but also cars that drive too fast, cut people up, dangerous over takes etc.

People jump on the bandwagon of either side all the time on this site and both are absolute hypocrites. Get off your high horses and chill. Everyone is guilty of something.

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
7:28pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Another vague anti-cycling letter from Angela Brader.

The female cyclist "rammed" her cycle into the wing mirror.
Not scraped or knocked or clipped but "rammed"
What image does that conjure up? Yep, battering rams, angry deliberate whacking attacks.

Same with "barge into"

"I would have damaged the bike considerably more if I..."
Just the bike? Not the person?

"I was pleasantly surprised that she did wait at the lights, as I fully expected her to disregard those too."
Open admission of prejudice.

"Before the cycling brigade start,"
Oh but she wants them to start, she wants it. Go on go on go on, you will you will you will!

"I was at the unfortunate part of the road where there was a chicane,"
Where? As with all her letters, completely vague. There's no way to judge what really happened without context. Just name the street. Verification and vindication is just a name away. Or not.

"There are no excuses for deliberately damaging other people’s property."
Yes, true. Was this deliberate? Or accidental? Careless?


Angela Brader writes these letters for a bit of a lark, a bit of a wind-up.
She doesn't realise how she could be stirring up hatred and vigilantism.

I can say from experience that I'd take twenty cyclists knocking my car over a car hitting my bike... from behind... while pointlessly and aggressively trying to race me to a red light. On Coppergate. Where I would have just passed him anyway. Idiot taxi driver.

Report this post »

Back and Beyond says...
8:05pm Sat 12 Jan 13

It goes to show that cyclists are pretty much unaccountable for their actions on the roads with little or no means of identifying the offenders. On another note, it amazes me how many cyclists decide to risk life and limb by filtering past buses and lorries in town.

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
8:21pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Back and Beyond wrote:
It goes to show that cyclists are pretty much unaccountable for their actions on the roads with little or no means of identifying the offenders. On another note, it amazes me how many cyclists decide to risk life and limb by filtering past buses and lorries in town.
Filtering can be safely acconmplished, prividing that a cyclist judges the conditions beyond the bus or lorry.
If arriving at an advance stop area in front of a lorry, always wise to give the driver a wave and look for an acknowledgement. Very limited visibility from an HGV cab to some adjoining areas, despite a plethora of mirrors.

Report this post »

sensible_cynic. says...
10:08pm Sat 12 Jan 13

From the Highway Code:

Part Two (Overtaking):

Rule 163

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

So, as Mrs Brader was not signalling to turn right and there was obviously not enough room to overtake. She is clearly correct in stating that there was no excuse for this behaviour as far as the Highway Code is concerned.

Report this post »

sensationalism says...
10:34pm Sat 12 Jan 13

sensible_cynic. wrote:
From the Highway Code:

Part Two (Overtaking):

Rule 163

"only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so"

So, as Mrs Brader was not signalling to turn right and there was obviously not enough room to overtake. She is clearly correct in stating that there was no excuse for this behaviour as far as the Highway Code is concerned.
You are wrong. The practice is known as filtering or lane-splitting and is not prohibited by the Highway Code or by traffic law.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
1:42am Sun 13 Jan 13

Was it Pedaling Paul in drag?

Report this post »

Magicman! says...
2:46am Sun 13 Jan 13

The highway code also states that cars should allow a sensible space between their car and the kerb. As has been stated above by the more sensible comment writers, we really need to know WHERE this incident supposedly occured - as the only place I can think of there being a chicane near traffic lights is Haxby Road heading to Clarence Street, and there is enough room for vehicles to allow a space of 70-100cm between their nearside and the kerb.

I am suprised there's only 3 comments here with any sort of anti-cycling reference.

I highly suspect Angela drives one of the following: an Audi, a BMW X series 4x4, a Vauxhall Zafira, or a tiny 'city car' type hatchback, as these vehicles rank high in my list of vehicle my mind flags up as being potentially dangerous due to the way they're driven.... and by 'high' they rank above buses, which says a lot.

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
11:13am Sun 13 Jan 13

Why the Press publishes the plethora of pathetic letters it does is a mystery to me. This women comes accross as some sort of pantomime posh who really does believe the lower orders should know their place and not disturb the serene progress of their betters. I can imagine her mother writing to the papers years ago about those new abominations the horseless carriage "frightening Mama terribly as she tried to cross the road in Mayfair it really isn't good enough and something must be done etc. etc etc" If she is so desperate for a cause I suggest she tries to get the speed limit in Wetwang enforced, it's like a racetrack there.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
5:04pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Not up to you or me 'last of' what people choose to write about, thank goodness.
This one attracted 15 responses to date, so it has got some people thinking.

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
7:07pm Sun 13 Jan 13

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Not up to you or me 'last of' what people choose to write about, thank goodness.
This one attracted 15 responses to date, so it has got some people thinking.
True but The Press don't need to publish them.

Report this post »

TheTruthHurts says...
10:09pm Sun 13 Jan 13

So there was enough room to pass all the other cars in the line of traffic except Angelas?

Says it all really

Report this post »

Each to their own says...
1:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Laughable, the whole thing. Anyone can write what they wish, you have the choice whether you read it or not, or whether you respond. Same old critics day in day out. Suggest you get lives if you get so upset by what one of you describes as this letter writer writing as a bit of a lark. Maybe she does, but it certainly lights the fire! Interesting fact that she says she was stationary when the incident took place, which suggests that who or whatever collided with her, is in the wrong whatever the circumstances. She also made the comment of the chicane to acknowledge that there was less room on her inside as there would have been for the rest of the queue of traffic, but still you lot are harping on about the car taking up more than its allocated space. Aren't you supposed to ride on the inside of a traffic calming chicane? Basically if it don't fit, don't force it! Whatever size vehicle she drives, it was stationary. If a car drives into stationary car's rear, even when it stops for no apparent reason, we all know who is to blame. Simple road rules apply to all. Manners apparently do not. My first time on here by the way.

Report this post »

Magicman! says...
12:13am Thu 17 Jan 13

TheTruthHurts wrote:
So there was enough room to pass all the other cars in the line of traffic except Angelas?

Says it all really
And that is the crux of the matter that ends the comments really... anybody saying anything more than this is just trying to justify the position of the car driver without knowing the situation.

Report this post »

wolds way says...
1:20am Sun 20 Jan 13

FFS! The position of the car driver was explained in the original letter, who clearly did so in preparation for the tirrade of uninformed garbage that followed. Why do you, magicman, have to have to have the last infinite words of wisdom??? The car was stationary, and that my friend, is the crux. TheTruthHurts, understand that there was room to pass other cars because they were not at the point of the chicane. Why do you comment that anyone else is just trying to "justify the position of the car driver"? That is the whole point as it clearly stated.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree