I didn’t see a huge amount wrong with the van driving until after the box junction TBH. He left the cyclist a decent amount of room and stayed about the same distance from the kerb as he slowed at the junction, the only reason the cyclist was squeezed there was because of the rubbish lorry blocking [i]his[/i] path. After the junction, white van mans behavior is inexcusable.
The driver should not have overtaken in the first place.
rubbish - why not ? - he was making progress - his overtake was a lot clearer than the dodgy undertake by the cyclist - which wasn't the cause of the incident anyway - the prolonged look was.
People complain of cyclists going round looking for trouble with their headcams and this guy certainly looks like he fits that bill, with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]which wasn't the cause of the incident anyway - the prolonged look was.
Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid now.
HC Rule 162
Before overtaking you should make surethe road is sufficiently clear ahead
road users are not beginning to overtake you
there is a suitable gap in front of the road user you plan to overtake.
[img] 
[/img]
HC Rule 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example...
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
flanagaj - no-one on here said that, they were just quoting a typically ridiculous and ill-informed comment made on the Daily Mail website
Argh. Ok. I like many have been subjected to such comments during the course of disagreements with Daily Mail reader drivers. I now quote what I posted, and it leaves them looking rather stupid 🙂
Said this a thousand times (looking at the glimpse of the cyclist in the clip) wear trackie bottoms tucked into socks and trainers and a hoodie and ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE GIVES YOU A WIDE PASS. Do the same fully commutered-up and you look like Daniel, the soft lad who works in administration for the council. You can almost hear the drivers thinking 'soft **** get out of my way'.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
You mean his luggage? 😯 🙄
when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
the van driver didn't do that - the cyclist did not swerve.
Plus if you expect that rule to be adhered to in city driving then you are living in a dream world - everyone is trying to make progress and his overtake was fine and did not endanger the cyclist.
Hmm.People complain of cyclists going round looking for trouble with their headcams and this guy certainly looks like he fits that bill, with his spacer board on the rear of the bike.
Please don't hit me I'm this <----> wide = C'mon then! Lets 'av it!
you better show your working out coz I don't think you'll score highly with your answer
"Van driver hands himself in to police after cyclist attack video goes viral"
You mean his luggage?
stop the video and have a look at what he has on the back of his bike - a big box fashioned to give him width - nothing bad in that but then why try to undertake through a gap that is smaller than the width you have imposed on your bike?
if you expect that rule to be adhered to in city driving then you are living in a dream world
Its still the rule and still bad to break it though at least you accept it was broken
The driver is braking as he overtakes - its hard to argue there was space not least as he had to stop for something in front of him during the overtake
Its still the rule and still bad to break it though at least you accept it was broken
and 167 says not to overtake at that junction, but the cyclist did it still, and a lot more dodgily than the overtake from the van.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
the van driver didn't do that - the cyclist did not swerve.
By undertaking in a way you object to. You can't have it both ways - either the driver broke that HC rule or the cyclist's undertake was fine. Which one do you want to pick?
Junkyard has covered your "everybody does it" defence.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]stop the video and have a look at what he has on the back of his bike - a big box fashioned to give him width
You know it's that rather than something he's transporting in the same way you know that he looked at the van antagonisticly?
Please can you let us know if you're trolling?
[quote=TurnerGuy ]and 167 says not to overtake at that junction, but the cyclist did it still
That was caused by the driver's dodgy overtake (DYSWIDT?)
I am not objecting to his undertake, just saying that it was a little bit dodgy the way he did it.
And the overtake from the van did not cause any issues for the cyclist, he did not cut back in and endanger the cyclist.
And the vans overtake was far, far better than the really dodgy, and possibly life-threatening, overtake from the tipper truck who cut right back in sharply.
I wonder what is in that big box strapped to the bike?
[quote=TurnerGuy ]I am not objecting to his undertake
Simply saying that it was what resulted in the incident?
And the overtake from the van did not cause any issues for the cyclist
Because he overtook the van again, which I think we all agree was probably the wrong thing to do. So if he's done the right thing he'd have been forced to brake due to the overtake.
And the vans overtake was far, far better than the really dodgy, and possibly life-threatening, overtake from the tipper truck who cut right back in sharply.
Yeah, what about that?
I wonder what is in that big box strapped to the bike?
I believe TurnerGuy's already worked out that that's where he keeps his sword of self righteousness.
And so the reasoned debate continues to degrade into big hitter territory...... 🙄
Simply saying that it was what resulted in the incident?
I explicitly said that it wasn't the undertake that led to the incident.
So if he's done the right thing he'd have been forced to brake due to the overtake.
the van did not cut in front of him, taking away any braking distance, or forcing him to swerve. He could have braked and stopped before the hatched section without any problem if he had wanted.
If that was me cycling down that road the only thing that would have hacked me off was the overtake by the tipper truck, which seriously broke that HC rule above and then cut in dangerously.
At the risk of a slating...
The first thing I noticed was that (if the cam was a helmet cam) the rider did no shoulder checks to see the whereabouts of other road users, and to make them aware that he was aware of them.
Not that this warrants a beating, I'm just saying!
Feel free to ignore this remark if it turns out it wasn't a helmet cam.
top read story on the BBC! quite news day. Cops looking cyclist to come out of hiding
Are you watching the same video or are we talking about another one now, If it is the original video I hope you don't driveAnd the overtake from the van did not cause any issues for the cyclist, he did not cut back in and endanger the cyclist.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]I explicitly said that it wasn't the undertake that led to the incident.
this is where I big hit...
[quote=TurnerGuy ]
Why would we want to place any blame on the cyclist?
the incident certainly wouldn't have happened if the cyclist hadn't made that dodgy move to undertake just before the hatched box...
this is where I big hit...
and lose, if he hadn't have made the undertake he then wouldn't have stared at the van and provoked the road rage - the road rage wasn't provoked by the undertake but by the stare imo.
Are you watching the same video or are we talking about another one now, If it is the original video I hope you don't drive
I have watched the video loads of times now looking for the issues that you lot seem to have with the overtake from the van.
I assume you lot all pack spare sets of underpants to change into when you get to work because of all the scary overtakes you encounter that don't actually affect or threaten your progress - unlike the tipper truck one.
I think the rage was provoked by the 'get off the phone you muppet' comment
I think the rage was provoked by the 'get off the phone you muppet' comment
good call - I am not listening to the audio.
[quote=TurnerGuy ]this is where I big hit...
and lose, if he hadn't have made the undertake he then wouldn't have stared at the van and provoked the road rage - the road rage wasn't provoked by the undertake but by the stare imo.
So the undertake led to the incident (in your opinion)?
So the undertake led to the incident (in your opinion)?
can you not read - I said that the staring at the van and maybe the comment that leffeboy mentioned caused the incident. If he hadn't have done that everything would have progressed normally.
If he hadn't have undertook then, but later passed him and did the same thing, then it is likely the incident would have happened later.
Driver handed himself into the Police and the rider has been found and declined to press charges.
What can you say.
As for who did what, the punishment pass after overtaking is pretty standard fare, even when (or especially when) you overtake on the outside, and I don't commute or even live in a city.
Other than the fisticuffs there is nothing on that video that most road riders have not experienced time and time and time again. I even had some **** indicate left and start to pull into the curb when he was half way past overtaking me! Meh!
It's a jungle out there.
Driver handed himself into the Police and the rider has been found and [b]declined to press charges[/b].
Okay, now I reckon we can all agree that the cyclist's a dickhead.
[quote=edlong ]
Okay, now I reckon we can all agree that the cyclist's a dickhead.Maybe he knows something we don't (e.g. did he actually hit the van on the way past?)Driver handed himself into the Police and the rider has been found and [b]declined to press charges[/b].
That's about the only thing I can agree agree with ,I would have pressed for the full extent of the law ,the driver was a muppit and I hope to god the poor publicity for the employer leads to him finding alternative employment .
Maybe he knows something we don't (e.g. did he actually hit the van on the way past?)
he could of, with that huge box on the back of his bike...
Is it known yet what either the 'Assulter' ( the van driver), or the 'Assultee' ( cyclist, obs) had for their respective breakfasts?
If they both had more than 3 Shredded Wheat.... There's the rub.
Well I never! Just had a van try and push me off the road 10 mins ago. 😯
In a queue of traffic and he took exception, beeping, revving, I looked back, two chaps, an escort van and a smell of weed.
I was 100% ( for you Ned) in the right, but what's the point? You can't educate Pork. Pulled over and let him go, cost me 10 seconds at worst.
I used to be prepared to stand my ground and confront these halfwits, now I realise there's more halfwits than ground.
Who said the "get off the phone, Muppet" comment? The cyclist to the driver or the passenger to the cyclist?
I wonder what is in that big box strapped to the bike?
[img] 
[/img]
I reckon this hit his van when he overtook him.....
The van driver was on his mobile, the bike rider made the comment.
I'm wondering why the biker has a helmet cam, if when he gets a beating he declines to press charges. What's the bloody point?
[quote=bigyinn said]
I'm wondering why the biker has a helmet cam, if when he gets a beating he declines to press charges. What's the bloody point?
One for his w**k bank ?
😆 ........SUCKERS............ 😀
[i]TrustATrader @TrustATrader
Follow
We've suspended Taylor Landscaping's membership, pending a police investigation.[/i]
[url= http://landscapejuicenetwork.com/forum/topics/landscaper-sought-in-road-rage-assault ]http://landscapejuicenetwork.com/forum/topics/landscaper-sought-in-road-rage-assault[/url]
This place is ace.
You lot could argue with yourselves in an emtpy room.
No we couldn't.
[quote=granchester ]So the van driver deliberately swerves into the cyclist and successfully knocks him off his bike and then accuses the cyclist of wrong doing. That's not all - he then goes on to assault him. That van driver is moronic scum who's actions make me sick to the bottom of my stomach. How f@cking stupid is is Lee Taylor? What a complete and utter muppet. Seeing his pathetic behaviour makes me hope that he's sentenced for attempting to take that cyclists life. Lee - you are a complete and utter f@king muppet.
Aye - except that the cyclist has, apparently, declined to press charges. I wonder why?
I just love the righteous anger and morality of the bandwagon jumping public as expressed on STW forum threads, they take a small, but vitally significant and very legitimate response to a thread and nurture it till it grows into an all encompassing monster then they beat it into submission with a shitty stick till it fits into their own particular version of events and we end up with an utterly vile shitstorm of morality that bears very little relevance to the original argument and it's raised points.
Thank god i'm not a member of the general public (as expressed on here), I'm so far above that in fact i'd go so far as to say i'm in a geostationary orbit circling above the amoebic soup below me.
Night all, sleep well in your pond
😉
Spineless sh1t. He's let the sorts of lee Taylor get off free for his vile acts. He's let all his cycling brothers and sisters down. Shame on him - grow a pair and press charges or next time they'll run over your skull. Press charges or every tosser in a van will be swerving into cyclists for sport. Dont become the spineless git he took you for when he tried to kill you.
Using common sense is the best safety measure you can take on the road.
It appears this sense isn't as common as it used to be.
I would never undertake a moving vehicle in that situation - ie common sense.
The driver was in the wrong to pull in and hit the cyclist, then to assault him.
If it was me riding that bike, at that time - the incident would have never occurred.
He's let all his cycling brothers and sisters down.
You lot are all related? That explains a lot.
Ha! Yes that was a funny retort, I like it but you should understand that I was speaking metaphorically with respect to brotherhood. Speaking of in breeding, looks like Lee Taylors bloodline has not strayed far from primitive man. I'm Impressed that he passed his driving test, well done lee. I get it that people like that dig holes for a living because they're thick but should he be allowed to be in charge of a vehicle? I mean how irresponsible can you get? Only a matter of time before he gets charged for his vile afflictions on society. major league prick - good luck digging holes for the rest of your life Lee. Having said that I doubt you'll ever be employed again - something for you to thing about rather than trying to kill Cyclists by deliberately running into them...... Muppet!
Driver charged with Public Order offence (which I assume doesn't need a complainant?).
[url= https://twitter.com/MPSHavering/status/557102168860553216 ]https://twitter.com/MPSHavering/status/557102168860553216[/url]
Driver charged with Public Order offence (which I assume doesn't need a complainant?).
more likely he admitted to something in his interview enabling the police to charge him.
granchester - Member
I get it that people like that dig holes for a living because they're thick
A bit of a faux elitest comment there, don't you think? What has what he does for a living (which probably [b]isn't[/b] just digging holes) got to do with the fact that he acted like a ****?
You get them in every walk of life(****s, that is) - probably some in your occupation too, whatever that might be.
Why would the cyclist feel the need to press charges? The evidence is on Youtube for all to see and the court of public opinion will surely be enough punishment enough.
If he's not the boss the driver has surely got to lose his job over this and gain a pretty poor and unemployable reputation following this. (it's only a matter of time before his name comes up)
I am not sure I'd agree that this will turn out that bad for the driver. I'd already pretty much forgotten about his actions and I imagine the non-cycling public have done so too.
Speeder - MemberWhy would the cyclist feel the need to press charges? The evidence is on Youtube for all to see and the court of public opinion will surely be enough punishment enough.
Possibly because the "court of public opinion" cant legally prosecute the person concerned for beating up a cyclist (despite the fact that they are pathetic).
Cyclist: Ohh look at me posting up videos of nasty aggressive man hitting me on you tube.
Police: Mr cyclist, we've caught the man who assaulted you with his van and his fists. Would you like us to apply the relevant laws to him so we can punish him appropriately?
Cyclist: Oh noes, the scenario I banked on never happening has happened. I'll leave it thanks, the shame of having people mocking the driver on the internet is punishment enough.
Police: Pussy.
Hahah - good post
"Cyclist: Ohh look at me posting up videos of nasty aggressive man hitting me on you tube.
Police: Mr cyclist, we've caught the man who assaulted you with his van and his fists. Would you like us to apply the relevant laws to him so we can punish him appropriately?
Cyclist: Oh noes, the scenario I banked on never happening has happened. I'll leave it thanks, the shame of having people mocking the driver on the internet is punishment enough.
Police: Pussy. "
As one can't thumbs up or like posts on here I'm quoting it.
Assault needs a victim statement.
Public order offence doesn't. So if cyclist doesn't come forward or won't give a statement or support prosecution then they'll go down public order route.