[Closed] Road rage assault on cyclist - victim sought

Why was the driver beside the cyclist,oh yes because the cyclist moved to be beside him...what happened next,oh yes the cyclist raced after him banged on his window and started swearing at him. You don't seem to have watched your own video. Go on,if you will not answer a q that might sit uncomfortably with you...why is it not a useful question? Straw man..oh the ironing!
As stated,driver arse,cyclist arse.

Hang on! its you getting punched,isn't it?

Must be crap being you,jumpy whenever you see a white car...

Do you understand what a strawman is, duckman? Try again without any...

If you're such an expert on the video, why don't you point out where the cyclist bangs on the window? Was it the cyclist who forced the driver into the ASL box? Was the cyclist wrong to tell the driver he shouldn't be in the ASL box (for which he had to stand next to the car)? It's not a useful question because we're not discussing whether the cyclist might have been better ignoring the situation - I've already agreed with that - the discussion is over whether what the cyclist does justifies anything the driver/passenger do.

Though I could just sum up the throwing your own arguments back at you thing by pointing out that the driver deserved to be shouted at.

I'm with you on this one duckman. Maybe the **** on the bike did have the right to go into the asl, why did he feel the need to actually do it without thinking "I don't really need to be here other than to be in front of the nasty car" - to me it is typical of the sort of militant cyclists we see on the roads every day. Yeah, the guy in the car was a bit of a tool in the way he responded but it wasnt necessary for mr militant cyclist to be a smart ar5e and move to the side of the car to point this out. In fact, if he had the time to do this and in effect put himself into a less than safe situation then the moral high ground of plonking himself in the asl directly in front of the car is lost. The ensuing chase etc was entirely unnecessary especially as he went out of his way to do so. They were both tools, the assault was unnecessary, as was the banging and shouting at the car occupants.
On another note - aracers list of the benefits of cycling included "being more chilled and nicer to people" - the tool on the bike in this clip doesn't really back this up - in fact over 50% of users on this forum blow that fact out of the water.

Aha,finally an answer;you do think the cyclists reaction was justified. See,that wasn't that hard was it? And after you throwing in the women in short skirts straw man as well. It does somewhat colour my perception of your view of what is proportional. I think the cyclist,while l do not condone violence,contributed hugely to the situation that developed. As you have stated he was justified in his actions,l see little point in continuing to go round in circles with you.

typical of the sort of militant cyclists we see on the roads every day

Just watched the video again - the cyclist turned round and went back the way he had come - where had he intended to go? Was he going to turn right at the first junction? Signs are for ahead only.
And no-one has yet mentioned that just prior to the car moving off after the assault another tool on a bike can be clearly seen jumping the red light - is this ok in the stw hive or do the militants choose to not see this?
A lot of double standards here methinks

Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation or would he actually have been safer to remain in the line of other cyclist waiting on the left hand side of the road.
Duckman - I agree with you that the cyclist definitely contributed a lot to the situation he found himself in. I dont condone the assault but I also know where you are coming from re your earlier statement about growing up in an area where you got a smack if you said something out of line.

[quote=duckman opined]Aha,finally an answer;you do think the cyclists reaction was justified. See,that wasn't that hard was it?

No - which is why I said that 7 or 8 pages ago and several times since in one way or another. Sorry you missed that - though that didn't seem to be the question you were asking either - do you still want an answer to that?

And after you throwing in the women in short skirts straw man as well.

You still don't seem to understand what a straw man is, or get the point of that comparison.

[quote=buzz1024 opined]And no-one has yet mentioned that just prior to the car moving off after the assault another tool on a bike can be clearly seen jumping the red light - is this ok in the stw hive or do the militants choose to not see this?
A lot of double standards here methinks

I've not discussed it as it's irrelevant - and the issue has been discussed here ad nauseum (personally I tend not to get involved).

[quote=buzz1024 opined]Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation

Well it was illegal... oh, you mean the cyclist, not the tool in the car.

I agree with you that the cyclist definitely contributed a lot to the situation he found himself in. I dont condone the assault but I also know where you are coming from re your earlier statement about growing up in an area where you got a smack if you said something out of line.

Which I think puts you a step or two more reasonable than duckman. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting the cyclist didn't contribute - simply that that doesn't mean he deserved it, or that he actually did anything fundamentally wrong. The fact there are places where people go round thumping other people for saying the wrong thing doesn't make that correct behaviour anywhere. Notably, as mentioned above, both the driver and the passenger broke the law, the cyclist didn't.

[quote=buzz1024 ]Was it safer for the tool to be in the asl in this situation or would he actually have been safer to remain in the line of other cyclist waiting on the left hand side of the road.
Why do [i]you[/i] think the ASL is the full width of the lane?

ASLs. The first couple of people who arrived stayed on the left. Good idea. But soon more people arrive, and so they began to spread out across the ASL- also good idea. Because the alternative is you end up staggered back up the cycle lane, which is generally the absolute worst place to be when the traffic starts moving again- if you want to maximise your chances of getting left-hooked, go for it though.

(these things are situational of course but this is the "default" if you like.)

buzz1024 - Member

Just watched the video again - the cyclist turned round and went back the way he had come - where had he intended to go? Was he going to turn right at the first junction?

He sort of staggers off to the right. Trying to read anything into this would be absurd. Would you just happilly carry on as you were, immediately after being assaulted, or would you go somewhere the guy who whacked you isn't, and sort yourself out?

Here's what TFL have to say about ASLs.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic. ASL facilities provide a second stop line in advance of the regular line. Between the two lines is an area (ASL reservoir) which is reserved for cyclists.

Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

[quote=scotroutes opined]Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

I don't think he displayed a suitable level of deference to the superior people driving cars, and got in their way, thus preventing them from spending so much time waiting for all the cyclists to come back past them at the next set of lights. I'm assuming that's it anyway. Well something about getting angry too - I think when a car nearly runs you over you're supposed to stay totally calm and ignore it.

Because it is the job of the police to enforce the asl not the cyclist,
Especially in such an aggressive manor.

If the cyclist had gone through a red light and a motorist chased him down and started screaming insults at him, pointing out the error of his ways would that be ok,

The car did not nearly run him over.

[quote=chip ]Because it is the job of the police to enforce the asl not the cyclist,
Was the cyclist right to take up position in front of the car?

Er, try watching the video again, you might notice that he is pretty calm and not at all aggressive when explaining the ASL issue. The anger comes after the driver almost runs him over. Yes it would be fine for a driver to shout at a cyclist if the cyclist endangered him in the same way - let me know when you find a video showing a cyclist doing that to a driver.

I'm also not quite sure why he shouldn't try and stop cars from using the ASL he is in when there isn't any obvious police presence to enforce it.

[quote=chip opined]The car did not nearly run him over.

How much closer did it need to be for that to be the case? The cyclist certainly thinks it did. Is it unreasonable for the cyclist to get angry when he thinks a car nearly runs him over, or does he have to check with you first whether the car really did nearly run him over?

scotroutes - Member
Here's what TFL have to say about ASLs.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic. ASL facilities provide a second stop line in advance of the regular line. Between the two lines is an area (ASL reservoir) which is reserved for cyclists.
Can someone (anyone!) please explain to me what the cyclist in that video did wrong?

bobbed when he should of weaved ?

The cyclist didn't do anything fundamentally wrong - he was entitled to be in the asl and the idiot in the car should not have repositioned the car. From my point of view he was perfectly entitled to comment re the car moving in to the asl. From that point onwards though the cyclist was not justified in his response - the car did not strike him or put him in any danger by moving off when the lights changed even though he was close to it. He may have believed it to be too close but the subsequent chase and verbals was out of order and of course he didn't deserve to be assaulted but personally I feel that his actions did contribute to the outcome.
Personally I would not have done anything different other than not chasing or gobbing off to the driver - it's just not worth it and I'm a big bloke that can take care of himself.

The driver entered the asl (wrongly ) clearly positioning his car well wide of the cyclists in order to pass safely.
It was the cyclist need to berate the driver. And moving closer to do so that put him anywhere near the car.

And if he had carried on about his business instead of electing him self a member of the asl police the driver would have probably pulled away in a more subdued fashion.

@buzz1024, I was right - you are a lot more reasonable than duckman. I think the only difference in our perspectives is that I reckon it was justifiable for him to respond based on his perception that the car put him in danger, even if it didn't. Though I can accept that other people have a different perspective on that.

[quote=chip opined]And if he had carried on about his business instead of electing him self a member of the asl police the driver would have probably pulled away in a more subdued fashion.

😆 - yes clearly that was the intention when he pulled into the ASL box 😆

Why not, he positioned himself well wide of the cyclists, why would you think he would have sped of like a cock,
Because he has a flash car.

If his intentions where to pass the cyclist close and fast I doubt he would have gone as wide as he did.

Four observations:

Cyclist - idiot (but didn't do anything wrong in ASL)
Motorist - idiot
Passenger - thug
Aracer - idiot

organdonor - Member

Four observations:

Cyclist - idiot (but didn't do anything wrong in ASL)
Motorist - idiot
Passenger - thug
Aracer - idiot

I particularly agree with the last observation. This guy clearly has a very warped way of looking at things.

The cyclist CLEARLY did not almost get run over.

Mr driver thinks he's too special to wait where he should, mr bike thinks it's ok to gets sweary and shouty mr passenger thinks it's ok to start swinging..
It's a collision of arseholes..

[quote=chief9000 opined]I particularly agree with the last observation. This guy clearly has a very warped way of looking at things.

Indeed - how wrong of me not to agree that the cyclist deserved it, or that they are just as bad as each other (despite the law agreeing with me).

I'd still like to know how close the car has to be to nearly run the cyclist over. Or indeed who I need to check with to find out if a car nearly runs me over before I'm allowed to get angry about it - who is the official authority on here?

Oh, and thanks for the ad homs - that does at least make it clear the level of the argument against me.

Driver = impatient and commited a minor rt offence but failed to endanger anyone
Cyclist = Complete bellend whose inappropriate response meant he deserved a good pasting in my opinion.

This forum is so polarised sometimes. If you strapped a bike under Charles Manson folk on here would be claiming he was a misunderstood soul who was a victim of circumstance 🙄

<adds graffalocrumble to list of people who think it's reasonable to use violence>

Indeed - how wrong of me not to agree that the cyclist deserved it, or that they are just as bad as each other (despite the law agreeing with me).

You've decided that the law agrees with you. That's a bit different.

If someone came up to me and started shouting and swearing in my face then the chances are that I would put them on their arse. If that means I make your list the so be it.

[quote=grum opined]You've decided that the law agrees with you. That's a bit different.

Based on reading the relevant laws and applying them to the situation - not something I think those who suggest the cyclist deserved it have done (it's really quite straightforward if you do read the laws). Though it appears I'm a bit special for doing that. Oh, and information on who the police have arrested and charged.

@gruffalocrumble yep, you definitely make the list. There are other ways to deal with situations apart from resorting to your fists.

Oh, and information on who the police have arrested and charged.

Yes because if there's one thing all these threads have shown it's that the law is always applied consistently and correctly.

The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal. Yes, he should not have been there but if the cyclist gets that wound up about that then he really shouldn't be cycling in London.

And he did not nearly get run over.

The cyclist inflamed a situation necessarily and that was the result. He needs to learn to pick his arguments more carefully

I'll give you that, grum. Though my first point still applies - it's not exactly hard to find out that you can't claim self defence for punching somebody who is shouting at you, or that the law sees assault as more serious than disorderly behaviour (even ignoring the statutory defence, I can't find anything which matches this incident in the sentencing guidelines - the lowest level offence is "Shouting, causing disturbance for some minutes").

@franksinatra - it's been said before so many times - the cyclist didn't get wound up about the ASL infringement, and how close does the car have to get to nearly run him over?

The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal. Yes, he should not have been there but if the cyclist gets that wound up about that then he really shouldn't be cycling in London.

This.

If we'd seen a video of a cyclist running a red light, a car driver telling him off - then the car driver chasing after him and angrily getting up in his face shouting at him - wonder what the response from aracer would be if the cyclist responded with a punch? I think I know what he's going to claim but I think I know the reality.

The stuff about 'nearly getting run over' is way OTT.

I'll give you that, grum. Though my first point still applies - it's not exactly hard to find out that you can't claim self defence for punching somebody who is shouting at you,

Unless you think you are in danger. I'd agree that probably doesn't apply to someone in a car though.

[quote=franksinatra ]The thing is, the driver going into the ASL is not that big a deal.

ASLs are primarily a measure designed to increase cyclists' safety by allowing cycle users to move away from traffic signals slightly in advance of motorised traffic.

When I look at that video I do wonder where the car was going to make off for once he'd pulled out alongside the cyclist given there was a queue of traffic (including a truck) heading towards him when the lights changed. As he pulls away, he has to cut fully back into the lane in order to avoid it.

I do enjoy the argument that the motorist conscientiously positioned himself into the ASL to be able to drag-race away with maximum safety, and the cyclist jeopardised this public-spirited act by moving. After all, the motorist urgently had to go and get stuck at the next red light, in exactly the same position he would have occupied had he, you know, obeyed the frickin law and not been a zoomer.

List,really.
The law is the law and if you chose to break it then you should face the consequences.
But I do not find the passengers reaction to the cyclists as outrageous as I do the cyclists to the driver.

And I know punching some one is rightly against the law but some people do deserve it sometimes regardless.

Now at what point do you think it is ok to hit someone.

At someone spilling your pint, maybe not,
Someone cornering your girlfriend at a party and groping her, defiantly. Despite the fact it's against the law.

I am not saying he deserved to get punched but I am not surprised he did. Because you can't behave like that and not expect to come unstuck sooner or later.

I hope I would have apologised. But if he then carried on, I hope I would have ignored him.
But his behavior was not reasonable.

[quote=grum opined]The stuff about 'nearly getting run over' is way OTT.

Well it was the perception of that which wound the cyclist up - is that so hard to understand? For your analogy to make sense, the cyclist would have to come within inches of the car driver (not surrounded by a metal box) at speed, before the car driver chases after him (in his metal box with the capability of inflicting far more injury than the cyclist can with his bike).

The thing is with those saying "oh, but he wasn't nearly run over", he was only a few inches away from serious injury, because that's what happens when a car hits you.

As for my "claimed response", I've been very consistent in my assertion that a punch is an inappropriate response to being shouted at and that the law agrees with that, I've mentioned that I've not punched anybody in over 25 years and I've never ever defended a cyclist who's punched somebody, in any discussion on here or anywhere else. My argument is about the proportionality of the responses, not the mode of transport they're using. I challenge you to find anywhere I've wavered from that position. You can make your own mind up what I'd think of a cyclist who punched a motorist who was simply shouting at them - though to be honest I don't care what you think, I've set out my position and stuck to it.

The cyclist might have made his point more succinctly if he'd simply pulled back in front of the Audi at the 2nd ASL (though the video suggests he had no intention of even going that far along the road)

You can claim provocation if you end up killing the guy - or reduction from murder to manslaughter (or something along those lines).

If you go around behaving however you want believing that the "law" will protect you from the big bad world, then you're on to a bit of a loser.

Well it was the perception of that which wound the cyclist up

I may have missed a few pages in the middle of the thread, but do we have a direct quote from the cyclist to say he got wound up because car nearly ran him over, NOT because car drove into the ASL alongside him and sped off?