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.[/quote]Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I’d always assumed that it includes bikes too.

these words do not go together.[/quote]Yes they do. See my post just above yours.

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… people make mistakes. You make mistakes. no one deserves their own mistakes to have someone else amplify the stress and danger of them.

DrP

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.dailymail.co.uk/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.

Yep, the cyclist could’ve driven instead. 🙄

Forget the microanalysis of the rider’s / van’s road position. Is it EVER excusable to physically assault someone?

No.

From personal experience it seems like physical violence is the first resort for many in the UK now. Not a good situation.

Is it EVER excusable to physically assault someone?

No.

Agreed. That bit’s very, very easy. There has been no argument about that whatsoever. It’s such an easy, cut and dried point that the conversation moved on to a different aspects of the incident.

From personal experience it seems like physical violence is the first resort for many in the UK now. Not a good situation.

Agreed again. Scary.

Noticed from the off the rider is riding on the double-yellows, then inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close. I imagine at this point hes done a hand gesture of some sort/has got himself wound up so when the van passes (tbh) as close as all the others on this narrow road he does something similar that winds up probably a lairy bloke anyway. The squeeze then the assault DO NOT make it right. Full stop though.

TBH I’ve been shoved like that by a dog walker in Calderdale. I’m more concerned about the guys deliberate road move/sqeeze into the kerb than the shoving.

We wouldn’t accept this instant violence or try to victim blame in any other situation.

“Did you see Dave just dragged Linda outside by her hair and slammed her head in the car door like in Lock, Stock”

“Really, why?”

“She got herself a pack of post it notes from the stationery cupboard without checking if Dave needed any”

“Well, obviously Dave over reacted but Linda could have avoided the situation if she’d been a bit more considerate. Also, I saw her ask Fred not to smoke in the office once so she’s probably just looking for trouble.”

Okaaaay

Which is why no one has done it on this thread either.

Bad drivers on their phones are a danger to everyone, especially cyclists which some of us on here are.

Also, it’s often said that for evil to triumph, all it takes is to good men to do nothing.Pretty much my thoughts (after what a ****ing *** that driver was) did wonder if the evil quote would be described as a bit ott but as you’ve already posted it I’ll add a plus 1 🙂

Maybe his method is questionable but it looks like he’s getting results in this case.

I’m guessing he’d prefer not to have been assaulted, it’s just a pity that on it’s own taking some video footage round to a copshop and saying “look at this nob driving while chunnering into his fone” will get you a polite smile and “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” you ave to wait until you’re physically assaulted to complain about someone’s irresponsible behaviour.

then inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close

could have been intentional, could also have been crosswind, momentary loss of balance, or one of the myriad of other things that can happen – you know, the reason why drivers are supposed to give cyclists more than the bare minimum needed to get passed without clipping us if we stay 100% 🙂 on our line.

Hmmm, the macho me would have done pretty much as the cyclist did (apart from the gutter riding). There would have been less chance of the bin lorry or the van trying to push through that way.
The chilled me would have said nothing about the van driver being on his phone and that would have been the end of it.
Whether I actually would say something really would have depended on my mood at the time.

Ultimately the driver being on the phone is illegal and thats what probably caused the incident in the first place, the driver’s inattention.

Sure the cyclist could have positioned themselves better and ridden differently, but these are not failings that we punishable by a beating.

In an ideal world nobody should have to ride (or drive) defensively, but in the real world its necessary and will continue to be necessary until everyone on the road can all play nicely. It’ll never happen over here until people like the landscape gardener are taken to pieces by the legal system.

Having watched that properly with sound again, the driver seems to think that the cyclist had ridden intentionally into the side of his van weapon. Whether that was genuine or blame shifting im not sure. Either way, mentalist driver.

Automatic one week driving bans for using a mobile like that while driving, with employers having to hold a job open. Every time. Needs adding to the Greens manifesto

then inexplicably veers out enough to make the passing truck too close

too late to edit my last post, but if you’re talking abou tthe one at 35seconds he moves out as he is passing a junction with a car approaching from the side – I do that quite a lot aswell, plenty of people stop well over the giveway line at junctions

the driver seems to think that the cyclist had ridden intentionally into the side of his van

nah, after the muppet comment the van definitely pulls closer to the pavement until it hits the cyclist so either driver did it on purpose or is inept aswell as a psycho

Its obvious the van pulls to the left into the cyclist, hence why suggested the driver was indeed a mentalist. The fact the driver actually says this further confirms he was actually oblivious that he’d just pulled in to the cyclist or wants to confuse the cyclist by blaming them.

or he was talking about the bit by the dirt lorry.

FunkyDunc – Member
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.

The cyclist did nothing illegal. He can “filter” inside the van legally (even if it’s not advisable with a van, lorry or bus). Having a go at the driver was about him being on the phone, not the space (though he might have been annoyed at that also). Verbal shout is no particular offence unless calling someone a muppet is an offence.

Only thing he did wrong was to wind up a thug and yes it’s a stupid thing to do, though you shouldn’t have to expect every other driver to be a thug idiot. Personally I would have looked at him and thought twice. Does seem this rider is a bit of a warrior for his cause by what I’ve heard of his YT account (now deleted apparently), and asking for trouble.

The van driver has bucket loads of failures though before the incident, mainly in overtaking dangerously with insufficient space and of course being on the phone. Add to that attempted murder and GBH, and if it ever gets to court he’ll get a pat on the back and sent off scot free.

Daily Fail are on the case, so watch for the anti-bike comments in there http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html

Had the driver been “foreign” then attitudes would be very different. Probably down as an act of terrorism and the police would be all over it.

It’s bugger all to do with what’s illegal / legal . It’s more about minimising risk, and that put him at more risk

A lorry was turning left, a van was in front of him, yet he decided to go up the inside

Presumably it’s not essential to find the victim in order to prosecute the perpetrator. There’s clear evidence of a crime there, that should be enough to trigger an investigation and ask what the perpetrator has to say for himself.

I guess from now on bike rage incidents will be followed by violent theft of the camera. The ante is raised.

Be interesting to see if footage like this hitting mainstream news sites will make people consider how vulnerable cyclists can be on the roads.

Essex cops are trying to trace the victim. Seems he doesn’t want to be involved though, or maybe as suggested earlier he’s been talking to lawyers if he’s got history of incidents like this on video.

I would think the police can’t act on the video alone. Driving offence is minimal on the video, can’t see him on the phone. Running over the bike they could do him for but probably too costly to take to court for the outcome of a few points on his licence if that, and punching the guy probably requires the “victim” to press charges. I think unless there’s proof of injury to make it GBH, it’s just common assault or something and needs someone to make a complaint.

I question why hes filming his commute- that says hes had near misses before. Whether it to do with a mix of riding/driving fault or driving who knows but when I had two near misses I stopped cycling into town. Those near misses (in my case) were one lunatic who threatened to run me over from behind next time and a lorry driver with dark shades on in a autumn dark morning.

Lee Taylor – You ****in’ run under me, ya ****!

Impressive move by the cyclist…

and punching the guy probably requires the “victim” to press charges

A crime’s a crime, it’s presumably the CPS’s choice whether to prosecute, not the victim’s.

But I’m just guessing, any legal folks know about this?

I question why hes filming his commute

Because he doesn’t want to be left in the lurch if he’s involved with a ‘non-stop’ driver, or a driver makes a false counter accusation? So that there’s a clear record of what’s happened?

I film my commute (but don’t put it on Youtube :wink:) for insurance purposes. The police (round here anyway) really don’t care what drivers do to you when you’re on a bike*, but at least if I’ve got the camera then the prat who’s run me over is going to get stung in the pocket because he can’t wriggle out of liability on the insurance front.

*A few years back a driver came up behind me on a residential road, beeped his horn, then overtook over a hump back bridge. He met a car coming the other way so side-swiped me then stopped, got out, ran over, knocked me to the ground and punched my in the face half a dozen times while I was lying tangled up in my bike because I “hit his car”. He told the police “I beeped my horn at a cyclist but he didn’t get out of the way so I punched him” (I swear, word for word!). The police told me there was nothing wrong with the driving and asked him to write a letter of apology because it was either that or nothing. He wrote “I regret that we bumped into each other”. 🙄

Edit: As for charging without a victim. Driving offences obviously can be dealt with without a victim reporting the crime. Some others can too, e.g. I think affray can, but assault would need a victim (IANAL).

From the CPS website, affray is :
Under section 3 of the Act, it must be proved that a person has used or threatened:

unlawful violence;
towards another;
and his conduct is such as would cause;
a person of reasonable firmness;
present at the scene;
to fear for his personal safety.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/#Affray

whereas assault is:
“An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force” so you’d need the victim to say “I apprehended/feared/expected the immediate infliction of unlawful force” for an assault to have been committed.

Some of the comments on here remind of those Daily Mail readers making comments such as –
‘What did she expect going out dressed like that’.

Why would we want to place any blame on the cyclist?

It’s not blame apportionment.

There’s only one person running a cyclist off the road with a tonne and half of van, and only one person doing the shoving and the punching.

What people are doing is picking apart the incident with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (not available to the cyclist at the time) and the knowledge that the driver is a moronic thug (again, ^…), and trying to work out what somebody else could do in a similar situation to avoid it happening to them.

It’s learning, not blame-storming.

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…

I don’t think that he would have passed his cycling proficiency test, if they still existed.

When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I’ll start feeling sorry for them. They act as if they own the road and yet pay absoluteley nothing for it. And what’s with all the head cams ? They are out there looking for a fight. Glad this guy got what he deserved.

on the daily fail website…words fail me…

the incident certainly wouldn’t have happened if the cyclist hadn’t made that dodgy move to undertake just before the hatched box…

that’s not relevant to the violent assault.

*A few years back a driver came up behind me on a residential road, beeped his horn, then overtook over a hump back bridge. He met a car coming the other way so side-swiped me then stopped, got out, ran over, knocked me to the ground and punched my in the face half a dozen times while I was lying tangled up in my bike because I “hit his car”. He told the police “I beeped my horn at a cyclist but he didn’t get out of the way so I punched him” (I swear, word for word!). The police told me there was nothing wrong with the driving and asked him to write a letter of apology because it was either that or nothing. He wrote “I regret that we bumped into each other”.

Flipping heck. Are you going to leave it there? Not sure I could.

When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I’ll start feeling sorry for them. They act as if they own the road and yet pay absoluteley nothing for it. And what’s with all the head cams ? They are out there looking for a fight. Glad this guy got what he deserved.

what’s their STW login?