[Closed] Motorist Runs Over & Assaults Cyclist NSFW

I have currently given up commuting by bike due to the shear amount of nob heads on the road and my tendency to shout at nob head drivers. I'm just sick of the confrontation.

It just doesn't feel safe at the moment. Which is really shit cos I love riding bikes.

There maybe cocks on bikes too, but that should never be a reason to run someone off the road. Cyclists, even nob head ones, are hardly endangering drivers!

Diverting blame away from the driver is making excuses for him, I don't see how you can say otherwise tbh. The blame for the assault is 100% his.

Diverting blame away from the driver is making excuses for him

No it isn't. What he did is still inexcusable. i.e. (you missed it the first time) There is no way of excusing what he did.

But it is possible for the driver to be 100% to blame for knocking the cyclist off his bike, getting out of the van and violently abusing the cyclist AND there have been ways possible for the cyclist to avoid being in a position where this happened to him.

They all sound like Ray Winstone in Scum.

It's impossible for one person to be 100% to blame and someone else to be partly to blame, because numbers.

stop using the word blame with %age terms. it's not helping you understand what's being said.

EDIT:HA weakest attempt to side step a pwning I have seen for a long time

yes yes i will just ignore where my own argument has led me

Trolls be a trolling eh

Original : [ no % are involved]Are all victims of crime "able to avoid the crime"

Rape victims Battered wifes killed children bike thefts etc ..i mean they did get in the car etc

The van had over taken the cyclist, the cyclist then stupidly undertook the van, and had a go at the van when the space disappeared, sorry cyclist was in the wrong for that. If he hadn't been so stupid then the incident wouldn't have happened.

Of course knocking him off the bike etc etc is wrong, but the incident could have easily been avoided

nedrapier - Member
stop using the word blame. and %age terms. it's not helping you understand what's being said.

Read what NW wrote; the driver is 100% to blame for the assault (since he's responsible for his own actions). I cant see how you can say otherwise

I'm not saying otherwise!

lol that cyclist is a bit of a ****

nedrapier - Member

100% to blame

nedrapier - Member

stop using the word blame with %age terms.

Righto

OK guys, you've got me. I'm 100% wrong. I'm going to blithely ignore my instincts about what's likely to wind people up on my commute to work and back, the instincts that have helped keep me incident free for 10,000+ miles of heavily congested London commuting, and just crack on doing whatever the hell I like, because if I happen to wind up the wrong person by accident and being hit, it'll be 100% his fault.

Oh, hang on, no I won't.

.

As long as you have a camera running you'll be fine.

I love it when folk have no rational argument or point to put fwd, their own argument has been torn asunder and then they still dont reflect on what they said but resort to pithy sarcastic replies

Sometimes this place is like debating with moody teenagers rather than rational adults

In that stylee
NED KEEPING BEING AWESOME

The van had over taken the cyclist, the cyclist then stupidly undertook the van, and had a go at the van when the space disappeared, sorry cyclist was in the wrong for that. If he hadn't been so stupid then the incident wouldn't have happened.

Of course knocking him off the bike etc etc is wrong, but the incident could have easily been avoided

It's all a bit like blaming women for wearing short skirts when they get raped. Deserve it they do... 🙄

The guy's riding really wasn't [i]that[/i] bad. He probably should have just hit the brakes and pulled in behind the van. That would have been the safest and most sensible thing to do. But my 'gut feeling' is that the cyclist was suitably unimpressed with the equally low standard of driving, which, if hadn't have taken place, the incident would never have happened... But, as the bottom of the food chain, cyclists should roll over and stick their bellies in the air.

Plenty of imperfect people on the roads. They give each other funny looks all the time. Sometimes toot and shout even. Non of it is justification for physically running a human being off the road, then trying to make out they hit you before attacking them.

Assholes like Taylor Gardening Services, Colchester need their driving license removing from them.

TAYLOR GARDENING SERVICES LTD
LODGE PARK LODGE LANE
LANGHAM
COLCHESTER
ESSEX
CO4 5NE

[b]Thirteen cyclist have died so far this year, the most since 2008, when the whole of January saw 14 cyclist fatalities.
[/b]

[u][b]Its Grim reading. RIP....[/b][/u]

The first two deaths of the year occurred on January 1. In St Leonards, East Sussex, Jamie Murray, a 23-year-old scaffolder from Hastings, died after being involved in a collision with an orange Ford Focus on the A259 at around 4am.

Later that day 32-year-old James Stephenson, a father of two young girls who worked as head chef at Applegarth Farm near Grayshott, died on the A3 in Hampshire at 7.30am.

On January 2, 49-year-old Karen Clayton was involved in a collision with a pedestrian in Altincham. She died from her injuries two days later.

The following day, Thomas Goodwin, 72, was taken to hospital with head injures after a collision with a silver Ford Ranger on Walwyn Road, Colwall, Worcestershire. He died from his injuries on January 5.

No other vehicle is believed to have been involved in the death of storyteller Andy Hunter on January 5. The Hereford Times reports that the 60-year-old was found by the side of the road in Michaelchurch Escley. He died from heart failure.

On the same day, 47-year-old Darren Schofield was riding on the A650 in Tingley, West Yorkshire at 4:10pm when he was in collision with a black Vauxhall Corsa being driven in the same direction. He died of his injuries on January 14.

On January 6, Andrew Wolfindale, 35, from Walgrave in the West Midlands was struck by an HGV on Tollbar Island in Coventry at around 6pm and died from his injuries in hospital later that evening, according to West Midlands Police.

Paul Miller, a 46-year-old primary school headteacher, was pronounced dead at the scene on January 8 after a collision with a black Fiat on the B3147 near Dorchester.

The next death came at around 10:00pm on January 12 when an as-yet-unnamed 43 year old man from Gloucester was killed in a collision with a lorry and several cars on the Golden Valley Bypass near Junction 11 of the M5.

The following day, January 13, Artur Piotr Ruszel, 45, died after a collision with a Honda Jazz travelling in the same direction on Upper Brook Street, Manchester at around 7.36am.

Later that day, an as-yet-unnamed woman was found suffering from head injuries on Old Bath Road, Cheltenham shortly after 11.30am. The 52-year-old was taken to hospital and later discharged. The ambulance service was called to the woman's home on the morning of January 14 and she later died.

At 2.35pm the same day, 59-year-old Robert Betteley died after a collision with a coach on the A530 Middlewich Road near Nantwich, Cheshire. He was taken to Leighton Hospital but died a short time later. Police arrested a 57-year-old man n suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

At 7:40am today, January 15, an as-yet-unnamed man died after a collision with a bus on the A1231 slip road from Spire Road. No further details have been made available.

To talk about blame in percentage terms when it comes to inexcusable actions robs anyone of the opportunity of learning from it and debating ways and means of avoiding similar recurrences.

Charlie Hebdo. Free speech. yes, bike theft, yes, bullying, take it to the extremes and you end up with conversations that are so sensitive they're doomed before they start, especially with internet strangers.

But I'd have thought we'd have been able talk sensibly on a thread about road use. I should have remembered all the other threads with helmet cam driver/rider violence videos. and the "eh? eh? eh? rape, eh, is that what yo're saying?" endings.

I'm a bit confused, I've watched it a few times and people keep saying the cyclist shouldn't be undertaking the van.. it's the otherway round, the van shouldn't be overtaking the cyclist if he is going to compromise him 10 feet ahead.

Cyclist was riding and had the right of way, the [b][u]VAN[/u][/b] doesn't see the upcoming obstacle of a slow turning vehicle while overtaking a cyclist. The cyclist had the right to go around the slow turning vehicle without being squeezed by poor driving (the cyclist is an equal on the road so consider a van trying to overtake a small slow car in such a situation.) He turns around to see the chap on the phone so calls him a muppet.

Yes its our fault your argument did not stand up to the debate

Forgive us.

Cloudnine -exactly. It's absolutely, desperately sad and infuriatating and unforgiveable that so many people are dying and so few people seem to care. I don't know which is worse, the violence or the indifference. At least you've got a target for your anger with the violence.

But I DON'T WANT TO DIE RIDING MY BIKE, and however distressing these videos are to watch, I'm going to carry on watching them to see if I can learn something that might stop it happening to me.

I'm a bit confused, I've watched it a few times and people keep saying the cyclist shouldn't be undertaking the van.. it's the otherway round, the van shouldn't be overtaking the cyclist if he is going to compromise him 10 feet ahead.

Both are true. Van shouldn't have. but it did. clock starts again. what's best for the cyclist to do now?

Yes its our fault your argument did not stand up to the debate

100%! 🙂

Forgive us.

100%

I love it when people read between the lines and insert their own opinions into what others post. Then wonder why reasonable debate is not possible and at the same time claim to have won the internet argument.

I'll bear the above advice in mind tomorrow and be sure not to look at anyone in case that forces them to punch me. 😉

It's not as if we're dealing with wild animals or unstoppable natural forces here. Of a cyclist undertakes you while you're driving you accept it and carry on driving safely. Maybe call the cyclist a muppet if it makes you feel better. But if that makes you so angry that you CHOOSE to knock the guy off his bike and give him a few punches then that's YOUR fault. The person doing the running over and punching has chosen to do that, it's not the fault of the victim (unless he's physically attacked the other person first).

I don't like wearing hi-viz, I'd rather wear clothes I'd choose to wear normally. It annoys me that people think I should wear it, because I don't think I should need to wear it. Competent, careful, attentive drivers should be able to see me in the daylight, and with my lights at night, whatever I'm wearing.

But in the end, I don't wear Hi-viz for the 9,999 competent, careful, attentive drivers I might meet.

I wear it for the one idiotic or dangerously pre-occupied numbskull who might pull out in front of me and deal me life-changing injuries. He (or she) is the wild animal.

People are animals, some of them are wild.

I find it best not to expect others to hold high standards.

I find it best not to expect others to hold high standards.

Exactly.

What's that standard quote on here when people ask about bike commuting for the 1st time?

"Expect that no-one has seen you, and that if they have seen you, they're actively trying to kill you."

It's laughed about, but generally accepted to be a good mindset to be in.

Ned. You say 'What should the cyclist do next' as if there is only one choice, why should he back off?

If someone pushes into a queue some people might accept it and others might speak up which one is right? You are suggesting.. if the queue jumper smacks the one who speaks up, matey put himself in danger by speaking up.

I don't think anyone is suggesting poor behaviour should be accepted, on the road or anywhere else.

IMO confront others, especially van driving chimps, when you are not in a vulnerable position yourself, and expect that any response may not be favourable either.

To be honest some people do seem to be saying.. pipe down and accept bad behaviour unless you are stronger than the other chap or in a bigger vehicle in this case. The kind of mentality that the van driver seems to live by.

[b][u]IMO[/u][/b] people are different and allowed to behave differently as long as they are following basic rules. Cyclists can ride their bikes with different mentalities! When riding YOU can be afraid of standing your ground in case you get killed or badly injured (seems sensible in the short term to me.)
Others can and should be able to ride with a different mentality without expecting any comeuppence.

Suggesting he should expect or might have provoked this attack in any way is where others start to ask you to consider other situations where a similar principle applies.

Cyclist is cycling too near the kerb - WTF?
Bin lorry squeezes by because of this - WTF??
Van overtakes on zig-zags - WTF???
Driver is, apparently, on the phone - WTF????
Van passenger is smoking - meh
Van driver hasn't, apparently, spotted the bin lorry slowing down (did he indicate? who knows.. maybe he was distracted by being on the phone) - WTF?????
Cyclist also, apparently hasn't seen bin lorry manoeuvre (maybe he should have been paying more attention to what's in front of him than the van?)
Cyclist makes disparaging remark to van driver - why?
Van driver makes actual physical assault with a potentially deadly weapon (van) - [b]WTF???????[/b]
Van driver then makes further actual assault - [b]WTF???????[/b]

So - van driver is guilty of assault, [b]for which there can be no mitigating circumstances[/b]. However, the cyclist hasn't exactly helped himself.

[quote=scotroutes ]Van overtakes on zig-zags - WTF???

I checked up on that, and not actually illegal or breaking the HC to overtake a cyclist there. The HC says vehicle, but the law referenced specifically says motor vehicle. Not good practice maybe, but amongst all the other stuff in that video it's kind of irrelevant.

Cyclist didn't need to do anything about a slow turning vehicle, nobody should be overtaking him so he can't get round it safely as he has his equal place on the road. If Van wasn't driving badly cyclist would have gone round slow turning vehicle without any issue. Of course he 'could' ride differently but he doesn't 'have' too

He has told the driver to get off his phone and pay attention;
geroffyafoneyamuppet.. is the accepted language in Essex

no mitigating circumstances. However,

[quote=aracer ]

scotroutes  » Van overtakes on zig-zags - WTF???

[quote=theocb ]

no mitigating circumstances. However,

Yes they do.

We have a winner 😀

 

A double trailer logging lorry did exactly this to me on the road running down Loch Ness. Fortunately, I was able to bunny hop sideways up the (5") kerb. Chased him for a few miles before coming to my senses.

Firmly on the side of the cyclist here. Pointless overtake by a wannabe silverback.

Staggering to me that people are saying the cyclist gave the van driver (who was on the phone and would immediately be banned in parts of the US/Canada) no other option but to carve him into the kerb and start pushing him about.

WTF are you guys on? The van driver is grade A chavscum.

JVL no one is saying the van driver had no other option. The fact is the cyclist DID have another option, and that was not to ride up the inside of the van.

Yes the van shouldn't have over taken him, but he did. The safest thing for the cyclist to have done at that point was to hang back. No one is questioning who is in the wrong.

All the macho men who say the cyclist wasn't wrong by going up the inside, that's fine, go ahead and do it, be macho, you are a cyclist and have rights after all, but the fact is you are more likely to end up dead than a cyclist who hangs back and just accepts they are the most vulnerable road user and therefore treats everyone who drives around in a metal box as having the potential to kill them.

Quite possibly / no doubt (depending on your stance) a poor piece of cycling, a fair chance that cyclist goes 'looking for trouble' for want of a better phrase, and a disgraceful response from the driver.

There's often a 'but he did this first and he shouldn't have' undertone to these driving discussions. It doesn't matter.

For those saying the the event was 100% avoidable...maybe..for us cycling gods.
But...imagine it's your slightly nervous other half, or less experienced teenage child cycling on a busy road for the first time (after getting used to cycling with dad on the more quiet routes). Yes, they make a little faux pas...do THEY deserve to get rammed off the road??.

It's like that Australian driving advert... [b]people make mistakes. You make mistakes.[/b] no one deserves their own mistakes to have someone else amplify the stress and danger of them.

DrP

[quote=FunkyDunc ]All the macho men who say the cyclist wasn't wrong by going up the inside

Hadn't realised I was a macho man. The cyclist wasn't wrong to go up the inside (personally I'd argue that he was just riding, as the van never completed the overtake properly). Hence not in any way to blame for the incident at all.

I'm happy to agree that from the perspective of riding in the safest way possible it wasn't a very good idea, but that's not exactly what some people are suggesting, and to be honest a complete irrelevance. If we're going there, then I'd suggest that the distance he's riding from the kerb is a bigger issue.

This has now made our favourite newspaper - the surprising thing to me is the lack of anti-cyclist comments. Maybe the knuckle draggers haven't woken up yet.
http://www.****/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html

Also a newspaper we seem to tolerate slightly more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/virals/11349859/Watch-Cyclist-knocked-off-bike-then-attacked-by-van-driver.html

But it is possible for the driver to be 100% to blame for knocking the cyclist off his bike, getting out of the van and violently abusing the cyclist AND there have been ways possible for the cyclist to avoid being in a position where this happened to him.