[Closed] Cyclist knocked off his bike and abused

Then the situation would not have occurred.

It was not unreasonable for the procession to overtake a cyclist cycling so slowly.

Aren't funeral processions [i]supposed[/i] to be slow?

[img] [/img]
Never mind the cyclist - get the bloody piper out the way!

Like how the woman was doing the threats-Reminds of the time I had a close miss. I did the wtf handsign (ok ****er sign). He slammed on. He made to get out of his car- I slammed the door and told him to sit down/calm down (he did). At this his wife went mental and jumped in with two feet telling me I was a deadman etc/she will run me over etc. I looked at him (builder type bloke and he was looking at the floor).

This really worried me. I didnt commute again for 1yr+. Just not worth the risks IMO as a cyclist.

No, I'm not - you quite plainly claimed that your amazing observation skills would allow you to deduce which cars were part of the cortège by looking at how the occupants were dressed during your lifesaver check.

This is what I said:

How about by the way the occupants are dressed?

in response to:

as I said before, how do you know a red hatchback is a funeral car?

I didn't mention the lifesaver (although I did reply to someone who did).
You're garnering more information from my posts than I've given.

Hence why people called you a God.

One person.
You just can't help making stuff up, can you?

Okay - you tell me then - if you'd been in that chap's position and realised you were now in the middle of a cortège with your right turn 20 seconds ahead of you - what would you have done exactly?

Being party to only a tiny glimpse of the situation it would be pointless to answer, but I will just to humour you.

Firstly, I would have been cycling so ****ing fast I wouldn't have been overtaken in the first place. 😀
If I had slowed to the speed of the cyclist in the video, perhaps to give myself more time to eye up some skirt on the pavement for instance, I would have either pulled over to the left before my junction, or more realistically caned it across the road behind the last funeral car whilst the white car was still some distance behind.

Out of respect, I would have held back on the wheelies whilst undertaking the manoeuvre.

your weak argument

My argument is not getting run over.
Your argument is getting run over.

I can't judge the strength or weakness of those positions, but one is definitely less silly than the other. 🙂

RichPenny - Member

I'm considering running sbob over, just to make a point. Not entirely sure what that point would be, but it would definitively be a good one.

Considering my point is not getting run over, you're not alone in not understanding what you are talking about. 😉

starfanglednutter - Member

Exactly, he wouldn't have dared to drive into him while he was signaling right, I quite agree. If he had, I think he would have been treated more seriously by the police.

So the funeral cars would have overtaken a car or motorbike on that road?

No they wouldn't.
Hence why that situation would not have occured.

So the funeral cars would have overtaken a car or motorbike on that road?

Okay, clearly you're just feeling contrary sbob, so I think I'll leave you to it with the observation that pulling over to let them past would have meant him stopping at, or very near, either a traffic island or a junction. Personally I don't think that would have been safer.

And your other apparent option of [i]"just be as awesumz fast as me"[/i] might not be quite so easy for a 42 year old carrying luggage on a Brompton.

starfanglednutter - Member

No, so the car that clipped the cyclist would not have tried to the cyclist if he'd been on a motorbike. Are you assuming that motorbikes are all really fast and drive in the middle of the road? Shall we call it a pizza delivery moped then? slowing down to turn right? Does that help to visualise it?

A 50cc moped can do 30mph, so the funeral cars would not have overtaken and the rider (or driver) would not have found themselves in the middle of a procession.
That's what I meant when I said that the situation would not have occurred.

Why was your last comment provocative? No need for that. Glad you changed it.

Sorry, I thought I had made myself clear when I said the situation would not have occurred, and thought this post;

Exactly, he wouldn't have dared to drive into him while he was signaling right, I quite agree.

Thanks sbob, I've figured it out now. You're a ****, [i]that's[/i] why I want to run you over. It was so simple 🙄

I would have gone on the pavement or got off my bike even, it was a funeral procession, and he wasn't even close to the kerb

Guys wtf. Why not contact the IPCC with a complaint? Should the cyclist not be on the road?

As a motorist I KNOW I cant overtake a bike inside a traffic island.

Not read the whole thread! Seen the vid though-car driver clearly 100% at fault and the woman really needs to wind her neck in....however, as she was on the way to her grans funeral then she was having a pretty shitty day and I'd be inclined to cut her some slack.

The policeman saying that it was partly his fault needs to be sent on a road safety awareness course!

GrahamS - Member

Okay, clearly you're just feeling contrary sbob,

I'm clearly contrary to getting run over!
That is all.

so I think I'll leave you to it with the observation that pulling over to let them past would have meant him stopping at, or very near, either a traffic island or a junction. Personally I don't think that would have been safer.

Wouldn't have been safer than actually getting run over?
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Pure Guinness.

And your other apparent option of "just be as awesumz fast as me" might not be quite so easy for a 42 year old carrying luggage on a Brompton.

I'm not that far from 42, although I don't look it, or act it.
I thought the swearing and the smiley made it obvious that the "I'd be going too fast" option was a joke.
The extra clue was the comment about eyeing up skirt, should you have missed the first two.

The third option, which you omit to comment on, is as stated what I'd probably have done.

Ps. Yes I do ride on pavements.

RichPenny - Member

Thanks sbob, I've figured it out now. You're a ****, that's why I want to run you over. It was so simple

I'd report your post but frankly I couldn't care what you think.
😀

Wouldn't have been safer than actually getting run over?

When weighing up my options I don't usually consider [i]"What if the driver of that car is a borderline sociopath who will deliberately ram me off the road?"[/i]

If I did then I'd conclude there were no safe options. Ever. And I'd probably take the bus.

The third option, which you omit to comment on, is as stated what I'd probably have done.

So you'd have [i]"caned it across the road behind the last funeral car whilst the white car was still some distance behind"[/i]? That option?

I don't understand. Caned it across the road to where? The junction was still some way off at that point?

And whose to say the white car driver isn't also a nutter who'd have run you down for caning it in front of him?

mtfu

looked to me like the cyclist swerved quite erratically each time he looked over his shoulder.. was he drunk at the time..?

I nearly die inside when I do that on the road, let alone doing it repeatedly in the midst of a funeral procession..

Poor bloke.. lucky he didn't get hurt

FWIW I would have pulled over, respect for the dead and all that

[quote=yunki ]looked to me like the cyclist swerved quite erratically each time he looked over his shoulder.. was he drunk at the time..?
I nearly die inside when I do that on the road, let alone doing it repeatedly in the midst of a funeral procession..
Poor bloke.. lucky he didn't get hurt
FWIW I would have pulled over, respect for the dead and all that
Sorry, the trolling pattern is currently full of sbob.

[img] [/img]

just my honest opinion from looking at the vid..

that doesn't make the assault right in my eyes, but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least

that's just a fact.. and doesn't make me a troll

I N R A T S but that is UN****INGBELIEVABLE!

but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least

I interpreted that more as pulling out a bit to take the lane when there were traffic islands to make sure no cars tried to pass at an unsafe point.

I think there's also a recommendation in a little book of the road somwhere about leaving cylists plenty of room in case they have to swerve or are unsteady, so drunk or not, you're still not supposed to drive into them.

Could also have been mighy windy for all we know, I've been blown about a surprising amount before, enough to give me the willies once or twice when I've been blown towards a passing car.

I'm more [s]surprised[/s] [s]disappointed[/s] enraged that their first reaction is not to check that the poor vulnerable squishy human they've just hit is OK, but to hurl abuse instead, even if he'd been standing at the side of the road waiting to throw himself in front of a car surely the absolute first thing you do is make sure they are ok?

**** hell! 😯

Notts police should be ****ing ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

[quote=yunki ]just my honest opinion from looking at the vid..
that doesn't make the assault right in my eyes, but he was riding a bit flipping squiffy to say the least
that's just a fact.. and doesn't make me a troll

Helmetcam quick panning from straight on to looking over right shoulder can give the false impression of erratic behavior.

Notts police should be **** ashamed of themselves. Pathetic.

To be fair the article says the couple were charged/cautioned by the police, so they didn't let them off [i]entirely[/i] even if the punishments were rather desultory:

"..the driver was ordered to attend an awareness course and the female passenger who abused the cyclist was cautioned."

Personally I think it should have been a Careless Driving charge and points on his license as a minimum. Funeral or not.

>>Personally I'd have been in the primary all the the way down that street. Too many traffic islands to sit in >>the secondary.

Likewise. This looks to me like 100% the fault of an impatient motorist who should have got at least points and careless driving for that dangerous move. The cyclist was clearly looking behind (and supposedly signalling) yet he tried to push past anyway. That points towards it being deliberate. Pathetic, inadequate, response from Police

However, his impatience, and the danger it caused to the cyclist, were massively exacerbated by the road design.

The width of that road and pavements is sufficient for protected, segregated cycle paths. Instead we have wide pavements (with no-one using them - not a single pedestrian in that video) and the road artificially narrowed with traffic islands and white paint. There is more than enough space to create a safe space for cyclists there without inconveniencing motorists.

Add to that the cars parked on the pavement on the side road at the start, and the pick up parked across pavement/double yellow later. On just a short video. I don't think the cyclists are the problem.

That points towards it being deliberate.

That and the fact the "lady" is shouting and the driver is sounding the horn for several seconds before they "accidentally" run into the cyclist who has been in plain view of them the entire time.

Completely agree with you on the facilities by the way - plenty of room for something much better there, but that's the UK for you.

(Help make it better: [url= http://www.sustrans.org.uk/getbritaincycling ]Write to your MP and tell them to attend the Get Britain Cycling debate[/url] and push for all the recommendations to be accepted)

Personally I think it should have been a Careless Driving charge and points on his license as a minimum. Funeral or not.

I am not au fait enough with ranks of driving offences but surely hitting someone, you have seen, from behind who has right way whilst attempting an "overtake" on someone trying to turn right is pretty high up the scale of bad driving

TBH If they wont prosecute that they wont prosecute anything

Do any of us really think the outcome will be the same if I do this to a copper on their bike?

Really Piss poor decision

PS I salute your indefatigability on these threads

Meanwhile a teenager on a bike causes a bus to do an emergency stop, one of the passengers gets injured and the teenager gets charged with Dangerous Cycling and Involuntary GBH.
http://road.cc/content/news/89871-updated-police-arrest-cyclist-after-bus-drivers-emergency-stop-leaves-passenger

So why can't this driver be charged with GBH?

GrahamS - Member

So why can't this driver be charged with GBH?

No proof of intent, no serious injuries.

Junkyard - lazarus

I am not au fait enough with ranks of driving offences but surely hitting someone, you have seen, from behind who has right way whilst attempting an "overtake" on someone trying to turn right is pretty high up the scale of bad driving

Worst thing is (and I may be wrong) that the driver will not have a conviction on record, so the only punishment they have received is that if they run someone else over within a year they won't be able to take another course.

Some people may think this is pretty harsh or unfair, but evidence proves he was entirely at fault and caused the incident. I will openly admit it is quite a freak accident, but one that could have been avoided had he been paying attention and riding correctly within the law. After all, if a car driver caused a serious accident by pulling out in front of someone, they too would be charged by the police

If only this was true and we got the same levels of protection as bus passengers. A car driver can see the cyclist and then run them over get out and threaten assault and just be told they are a very naughty boy 😕

Those of you who are unhappy with the response from Nottinghamshire police should raise your concerns by writing to them at the address below detailing your reasons;

Professional Standards Directorate
Police Headquarters
Sherwood Lodge
Arnold
Nottingham
NG5 8PP

or by e-mail at psd@nottinghamshire.pnn.police.uk

No proof of intent, no serious injuries.

Surely the teenager didn't have intent either?
He didn't intend to get hit by a bus or harm any passengers. He was just stupid/reckless/careless.

I guess the scale of injury is different in this case, but I'd say that's more through luck than anything else.

Balance of probabilities, the law is an ass.

ok ive meailed notts police, the IPCC and the CPS

Hello

I would like to ask a question

as the email in the linked article from notts police to the victim states that the highway code (as regards to prosecuting in this case) is effectively suspended for a passing funeral cortege.

I would like to know how you determine whether the cortege has passed, ie whats the average number of cars in a cortege.

I only ask as a concerned cyclist and wouldnt want to be run over by a driver in a funeral cortege who now realises that he has reduced culpability when hitting a cyclist.

The charging guidelines for Dangerous Driving (with a mandatory 12 month ban) include incidents where the driver has not given due regard to vulnerable road users such as cyclists and "overtaking that could not have been completed safely".

So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving, but the CPS don't follow their own guidelines.

The bus vs cyclist case is interesting. Could it set a precedent? Driver hits me when I'm cycling, he now gets charged with assault?

Of course not, we're cyclists, we don't matter, but it would be nice if it happened.

bails - Member

So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving

No it isn't.
The burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.

Balance of probabilities, the law is an ass.

We agree on something at last sbob 😀

The bus vs cyclist case is interesting. Could it set a precedent? Driver hits me when I'm cycling, he now gets charged with assault?

Of course not, we're cyclists, we don't matter, but it would be nice if it happened.

Yeah that's the thing - I don't really object to the charges in that Bus vs Cyclist case. Assuming the reporting of the circumstances is correct then they seem a little harsh but reasonable.

But they are only "fair" if we can expect drivers to face the same kind of charges and quite obviously they don't - even when caught on video and clearly in the wrong.

BTW did anyone catch the quite excellent pro-cycling pieces on BBC News and Newsnight the other night?

Newsnight piece (watch from 22:28) :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/bigscreen/tv/episode/b038bpyg

BBC article: "Why is cycling so popular in the Netherlands?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587916

Great to see this stuff hitting mainstream media.

I have to quote the ABD guy in full as his frankly deranged world view deserves as much public scrutiny as possible:

"I think Boris' plans for spending more on cycling are, in essence, bonkers. Cycling is one of the most dangerous occupations you can undertake. You should realise that. And that's why, if you've got any sense, you get off your bike and actually use public transport or buy a car.

They are becoming a very pushy minority group. You don't get that from motorists who are much better behaved generally."

- [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038bpyg/Newsnight_07_08_2013/ ]Roger Lawson, Alliance of British Drivers, speaking to Newsnight on 7th August 2013[/url] (31 mins in)

😯

Just reread this thread and viewed the vid again. My flabber remains gasted, not by the driver (we all know there are plenty of psychopathic killers piloting cars round the roads), but by the police response. That there is somehow mitigation because they were on their way to a funeral.

Sorry, but that can only wash (very slightly, if at all) if there was some contriteness to the driver's behaviour in the run up and after. If the response had been 'OMG. I'm so sorry, I'm following that hearse to my Grandad's funeral and wasn't paying proper attention, are you OK, let me help you up' etc. then I could see why the police might take a more lenient position. But sorry - the horn beeping first and the behaviour after removes any mitigation in my mind.

Deliberate, premeditated assault with a deadly weapon.

You don't get that from motorists who are much better behaved generally.

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Brilliant! Ow, god I think I've pulled something laughing too hard.

What a ****.

Good work Kimbers, keep on poking them. 🙂

Deliberate, premeditated assault with a deadly weapon.

Yup. I'm getting the urge to by one of [url= http://www.spservices.co.uk/item/EMI_EMIWindscreenCenterPunch_76_0_24_0.html ]these[/url] again. I'm really beginning to think that the only way cyclists are ever going to get some redress in these situations is if they start dishing it out themselves.

sbob - Member
[i]bails - Member
So it's a pretty clear case of dangerous driving[/i]

No it isn't.
The burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.

Burden of proof. Like a video of a driver failing to give due regard to a cyclist and making an overtaking manouver that could not have been completed safely? That kind of proof?

This: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/motorist-convicted-of-dangerous-driving-after-being-caught-on-hidden-in-car-camera-1-4855955 led to a conviction for DD, a 12 month ban and 40 hours of community service. And he didn't even run anyone over.

Like I said, if the CPS & police follow their own guidelines then the incident in the OP should have been charged as dangerous driving (obviously, the CPS are reliant on the police sending files in the first place).

Here's a quote from the CPS ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/)

Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence.

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:

racing or competitive driving;

[b]failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, [/b]motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;

speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;

aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;

disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;

disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;

[b]overtaking which could not have been carried out safely[/b];

How is it not dangerous driving?

How is it not dangerous driving?

Your evidence shows FA.
Your evidence shows a cyclist cycling along and then falling over.
It doesn't show a car overtaking.
It doesn't show a collision.

The video you link to is totally different.
It does show a car ignoring solids and ignoring a keep left bollard.
That is evidence.

Like I said, the burden of proof for DD is very high and it is an incredibly hard charge to stick.
You might not like that, but that's the way it is.