Boris.

[Sassy]

I'm sure that certain members of the Forum would be delighted to see that Boris Johnson, MP, Mayor of London, prospective Tory Leader, possible future Prime Minister, is as foul-mouthed as they are.

"Mayor of London Boris Johnson had a foul-mouthed exchange with a taxi driver in north London

First published 05:35 Thursday 18 June 2015 in National News
© by Press Association 2014

Mr Johnson has been caught on film telling the black-cab driver to "f*** off and die".

The 10-second video, obtained by the Sun and Daily Mail, shows Mr Johnson, recently elected as Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, being harrangued by the driver while cycling in Islington, north London.

Captured by a by-stander, the film shows the driver leaning out of his window and shouting: "You are one of them mate, that's what you are. One of them."

Mr Johnson then replies: "Why don't you f*** off and die - and not in that order." As he drives away, the cab driver shouts: "Yeah b******s, hope you die."

The incident reportedly took place as Mr Johnson was cycling home on June 5 at around 12.20am in St John's Street, Islington."

Let's face it... had be been plain old Boris the bin man would it have got in the papers? The guy is human being an MP does not make him a saint or perfect...

[Humph Warden Bennett]

But should Boris, supposedly a pillar of the Establishment, have sunk to the cabby's level?

No he shouldn't have.  However in this scenario I'm inclined to cut hims some slack.

Me too.

[Rhiannon]

My cabbie mate has huge problems with cyclists in the city, sometimes they hang on to his cab for a tow and his paintwork gets scratched regularly. Equally though I think Boris is to be applauded for putting himself in the firing line day in day out, among the people he represents. I don't think it a big deal but as I said up BA at the start I find that if anything is offensive it is the sentiment rather than the language.

But no, no big deal.

[ad_orientem]

I would have done exactly the same as Boris. "Fuck off, pal!" or something like that. We all have to put up with dickheads on the road, even politicians.

[Hope]

Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.

Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs.  Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.

[Harrowby Hall]

Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.

Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs.  Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.

What you do is:

1 Go to YouTube

2 In the search box insert " Boris"

3 Press return.

If that is too complicated then try: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=060nY-sQ1eo

Having watched the 5 second or so exchange I think it is all a grossly inflated non-event.

[Hope]

Having watched the 5 second or so exchange I think it is all a grossly inflated non-event.

Likewise.  A chlidish display by both taxi-driver and Boris.

[BashfulAnthony]

Having watched the video, I don't think any of it was mere banter.

Could you post a link to the video - then we can all look at the context in which this occurs.  Having cycled around London in my day - albeit 30+ years ago - I've had my fair share of foul-mouthed cabbies making it clear to me that I have no right to be on the roads of London at any time of the day.

www.theguardian.com/.../boris-johnson-filmed-swearing-taxi-driver-london- uber‎


You could very easily have looked it up yourself.

[Red Giant]

If we don't like people swearing, the best way to stop it would be to abolish the whole concept of swearing.  Who needs it?

Get the Queen to use a few choice words next Christmas, and nobody will notice what Boris says.  Problem solved.

[ProfessorDavey]

My cabbie mate has huge problems with cyclists in the city, sometimes they hang on to his cab for a tow and his paintwork gets scratched regularly. Equally though I think Boris is to be applauded for putting himself in the firing line day in day out, among the people he represents. I don't think it a big deal but as I said up BA at the start I find that if anything is offensive it is the sentiment rather than the language.

But no, no big deal.

Well must admit in all my 10 years of cycling in London I've never seen a cyclist get a tow from a cab. And would be a pretty daft and dangerous thing to do anyhow.

As a cyclists taxis in London are an absolute nightmare. Typically you tend to cycle near the curb and taxis regularly simply pull in without indicating or looking when hailed. Also they often pull out again without proper attention to the presence of cyclist and often without indication. Then there is the classic u-turn scenario when you suddenly face a taxi side on as it has decided it wants to go in the opposite direction. Finally (and not really the fault of the taxi driver directly) there is the common issue of the passengers. So a taxi pulls in without indicating or realising you are behind. You pull out to overtake and suddenly are confronted with a door opened (again without anyone checking it is safe to do so) directly into your path.

So frankly I have very little sympathy for taxi drivers in the taxi driver vs cyclist stakes. The most you can come up with is that (allegedly) they might end up very occasionally with some scratched paintwork. The irresponsible actions of the taxi drivers are likely to result in the cyclist being hospitalised or worse. The notion of a little damage to the bike's paintwork is hardly worth worrying about.

[floo]

Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them!

[ProfessorDavey]

Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them!

Sure there are plenty of dick-head cyclists, but a couple of things are worth noting.

First, cyclists acting in an irresponsible fashion are rarely a risk to anyone but themselves. Drivers are very rarely killed or injured in collisions with bikes - although cyclist often are, whether or not they are to blame. Acting irresponsibly when in control of a one ton car (or multi-ton lorry etc) is lethal to other road users. Being irresponsible when riding a few kg of bike is usually only a risk to you.

And a tiny minority of deaths and injuries caused on our roads and pavements involve collisions between pedestrians and cyclists - so in 2013 only about 1.5% of pedestrian deaths or serious injuries involved bikes - the rest motor vehicles.

And worth noting these stats don't tell us who was to blame, nor whether the accident was on the road or pavement. From my extensive experience as a cyclist and a pedestrian, cyclists are much more at risk of irresponsible behaviour by pedestrians than the other way around.

The other point worth noting is that as a cyclist you tend to be far more aware of what is going on around you and also better able to negotiate situations than you ever are as a pedestrian or motorist. So the cyclist you may consider to be being irresponsible may be very well aware of the situation around them and in complete control of negotiating the situation.

Not trying to defend all cyclists, but cyclists as a group often undeservedly get a very bad press, despite them being perhaps the most vulnerable of all road users. And often those who have a go at cyclists haven't been in the saddle for years, if ever. Before having a pop at cyclists I'd recommend spending a week cycling around London, or any other city, or just negotiating those country lanes you speak of. You might well change your tune, as I have know many times when friends of mine have taken up cycling.

[jeremyp]

After the first time we had this cyclist conversation, in which  I claimed all cyclists were menaces, having recently been almost run over by one on a pedestrian crossing, I started counting the number of cyclists who ran red lights on my walk to work.  It turned out that the vast majority of them are completely law abiding.  In fact, the worst menaces were pedestrians, particularly in the semi pedestrianised areas.

[ProfessorDavey]

After the first time we had this cyclist conversation, in which  I claimed all cyclists were menaces, having recently been almost run over by one on a pedestrian crossing, I started counting the number of cyclists who ran red lights on my walk to work.  It turned out that the vast majority of them are completely law abiding.  In fact, the worst menaces were pedestrians, particularly in the semi pedestrianised areas.

Indeed, I think if you asked any cyclist they'd tell you that, and of course all are pedestrians at some time or other as well.

Every day I cycle for about one hour on my way to and from work, mostly across London. On average I think I have about a dozen incidents where I need to take mild evasive action to avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is simply unaware of my presence. This is always on the road where I have right of way, and I am usually wearing a fluorescent jacket and have (and use) a bell. Often (but not always) the pedestrians are on the phone or wearing headphones, and for some reason seem to think it is OK to step off the pavement without even looking. I must admit I don't understand the psychology here, but seems so common that it has to be a behaviour.

It would be interesting whether the cyclist who 'almost ran you over' on a pedestrian crossing really did nearly run you over, or whether they were clearly aware of your presence, your trajectory and easily able to miss you (albeit without your realising).

In the past 10 years I've been knocked off my bike three times in collisions with pedestrians - every time on the road, when I was not at fault. On each occasion I (and my bike) came off worse in the collision. Still waiting for the reverse -being knocked over as a pedestrian by a cyclist when it was there fault - has yet to happen in a lifetime. And I can't remember as a pedestrian having to take the kind of evasive action I take many times a day as a cyclist to avoid a collision.

[L.A.]

Cyclists can be an absolute nightmare too! Some will ride two or three abreast on the narrow lanes around here, not letting cars pass them. On numerous occasions I have seen cyclists jump the lights as if the rules of the road don't apply to them!

A significant minority of cyclists are totally irresponsible. They regularly break traffic laws because they know that the police are normally too busy to be bothered with minor offences. I have lost count of the number of times that cyclists have overtaken me on the inside, in an inside lane, while I was signalling left.

However, one day I was walking on the pavement carrying a heavy box of tools when I caught sight of a cyclist bearing down on me in my peripheral vision.  I shifted the the load slightly - and ZAP - I got the bugger.

Coincidentally, this was in front of a large police sign warning cyclists not to cycle on the pavement . . . he didn't hang around to complain.

[ProfessorDavey]

They regularly break traffic laws because they know that the police are normally too busy to be bothered with minor offences. I have lost count of the number of times that cyclists have overtaken me on the inside, in an inside lane, while I was signalling left.

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

The notion that you seem to feel that as a driver you have the right of way turning left if there is other traffic on your inside going straight on is really, really scary. But of course what cyclist face every day of the week.

[L.A.]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

[ProfessorDavey]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.

[jeremyp]

It would be interesting whether the cyclist who 'almost ran you over' on a pedestrian crossing really did nearly run you over, or whether they were clearly aware of your presence, your trajectory and easily able to miss you (albeit without your realising).

I was on a pedestrian crossing that was showing green for pedestrians.  If I hadn't stopped in the middle of the road, He would have mowed me down.  From his point of view, I was walking right to left so I was nearly across the road.  I think he thought he could get through ahead of me but misjudged my speed, either that or he failed to see me at all because he was watching for people coming from the left.  Of course he totally ignored the red light. 

[jeremyp]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

The Highway Code says this

[Rule 72] When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/road-junctions-72-to-75

That does not mean you have an excuse to run them over if they do overtake on the inside.

[L.A.]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.

The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.

If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.

[L.A.]

Perhaps I should add that the last thing in the world I would want would be to have a horribly mangled cyclist under my car - so obviously I always try to take every precaution to avoid that possibility - but I would have no qualms if a cyclist who came too close to me (as a pedestrian) found himself badly bruised in a ditch needing expensive repairs to his machine.

[ProfessorDavey]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

The Highway Code says this

[Rule 72] When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/road-junctions-72-to-75

That does not mean you have an excuse to run them over if they do overtake on the inside.

If you are a motorist turning left they shouldn't be on your inside anyway if you are following the Highway Code. And if they are it is your responsibility to take caution to ensure you see them and also not to make the manoeuvre unless safe to do so - which it wouldn't be if there is a bike on your inside.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

Turning left
182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

Even gives a little picture showing that the car should stay behind the bike and not overtake it if turning left. Given that in most circumstances a bike ends up on the inside of a car because the car has just overtaken it the Highway code is clear that a car about to turn left should not overtake a bike in the first place, but should hang back behind the bike and turn left behind it. It is also clear that the driver must watch out for traffic coming up on the left (which would of course be a bike).

But the most important is the law on right of way. Turning traffic must give way to traffic going straight on (unless there is a right or left filter and the straight on traffic is stopped). This applies to both turning left and right. Further vehicles should only make a manoeuvre if safe to do so. A left turning car which cuts across a bike on its inside which is going straight on falls foul of these regulations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Blimey - I think you need some significant reeducation as a driver. If you are turning left it is your responsibility to ensure that you can do so safely. Therefore to ensure that there is no-one on your inside that may be crushed to death if you do so. And you indicating has no effect on the onus of responsibility which remains your. It a cyclist is on your inside (which they are perfectly entitled to be) and are going straight on at a junction and you turn left across them the fault is entirely yours, whether or not you are signalling. The fact that they may be dead, while you have merely a dented front wing seems also to have escaped you.

I beg to differ. While I will always do everything possible to ensure I avoid a collision with any vehicle - particularly bikes where (as you point out) the cyclist is particularly vulnerable - the reality is that when some loony tries to squeeze through on the inside during a left turn, it may not be possible to see them - and I don't believe that the Highway code recommends such manoeuvres.

I sometimes think that I have a greater regard for the safety of cyclists than they have themselves - (though, as a pedestrian, I'm less fussy)

You can beg to differ all you like. The Highway code is clear and you are wrong.

It doesn't matter how small a space they've gone through. If they are going straight on and you are turning left, they have right of way. And it makes no difference if you are signalling or not.

The highway code warns against overtaking left-turning vehicles on the inside - and common sense ought to tell anyone that it is dangerous. The cyclist may well be in the drivers blind-spot, so the most vigilant driver in the world would be unable to see them.

If you are seriously defending such behaviour you are completely irresponsible.

The Highway code warns drivers not to overtake a bike before they are turning left - which is more often than not the  the reason why the bike will be on your inside in the first place. Secondly it warns that left turning drivers must be aware that there may be traffic moving up on the their inside and of course finally you are never allowed to make a manoeuvre if you don't have right of way (which you don't if the bike is going straight on), nor if it is unsafe (which it won't be if there is a bike on your inside).

'Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.'

You suggest you learn your responsibilities as a driver rather than engaging in classic 'victim blaming' - it is their fault they are in hospital because I turned left without realising they were on my inside and mangled them. Nope, it is your fault - you've got the one ton metal box - learn to drive it responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code and laws of the road.

[ProfessorDavey]

but I would have no qualms if a cyclist who came too close to me (as a pedestrian) found himself badly bruised in a ditch needing expensive repairs to his machine.

Blimey really demonstrates your attitude - appalling. What does too close mean that is sufficient to justify violence.

Perhaps as a cyclist I should punch any pedestrian that gets too close to me by stepping out onto the road into my path without even looking (by the way I wouldn't dream of doing this despite this being a regular occurrence, totally their fault and rather dangerous). Happens regularly - I'll let you know later this morning how often on my standard 30 minute cycle commute later this morning.