Motorist Runs Over & Assaults Cyclist NSFW

that’s not relevant to the violent assault.

yes it is, if he had been riding a bit better the incident wouldn’t have happened.

When cyclists start paying road tax and insurance I’ll start feeling sorry for them

they have a point about insurance.

they have a point about insurance.

quite a few of us do have it you know, not that I think I’m about to inadvertently cause several thousand pounds worth of damage mind – just so I can tell ill informed idiots* to STFU 🙂

*just to be crystal clear, that wasn’t aimed at you TG

yes it is,

No. It’s not.

*just to be crystal clear, that wasn’t aimed at you TG

it’s ok, I have liability insurance as well.

As was pointed out on an insurance thread recently, it seems if you’ve got contents insurance covering the bike away from home then chances are you have 3rd party insurance anyway. Which I didn’t know. Still not entirely convinced it’s intended to cover you crashing into someone though. It’s more about liability cover for personal possessions. If your bike was stored somewhere and fell on someone, or that kind of thing.

yes it is, if he had been riding a bit better the incident wouldn’t have happened.

The person who’s responsible for the violent assault is the person who did it not the victim.

As discussed above, not only is there nothing much wrong with his riding, but it is as relevant as the fact that he got out of bed in the morning, or that he chose to use a bike rather than a car. Or that a woman went out wearing a short skirt.

🙄 Most cyclists have insurance – I reckon the proportion of uninsured is probably not too dissimilar to the proportion of uninsured car drivers – the latter are of course far more likely to do far more damage to 3rd parties.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/accident-insurance-3

Jesus Christ people, the situation was the guy didn’t ride perfectly, could that have been resolved without him being knocked over and assaulted, yes it could. Was it, no. End of, the driver was out of order by a massive margin above that of the cyclist. There should be no need for a group of ‘road users’ of any description to fall out about this so SORT IT OUT.

I am a road user, whether that be on foot as a pedestrian, on a bike as a cyclist, or in the car I pay a VED and insurance bill for yearly. As each of these I both accept that I have a responsibility to act responsibility and also to treat others with respect.

You beat me to it. But just to clarify, it’s any contents insurance, you don’t need to have cover for your contents away from home, the personal liability cover is a standard part of the policy whether or not you take that out.

made the bbc website now. He’ll probably hand himself in soon.

How big do we think is the financial loss caused to people/companies/organisations by people riding around uninsured on bikes and causing accidents?

It’s a genuine question..I have no idea, but I suspect its a very small number indeed or the courts would be full of claims for damages against cyclists and I don’t think they are.

Obviously there are some instances where a mistake by someone riding a bike causes a financial loss, but is it really worth bringing in a bureaucracy to legislate and manage that cyclists should have insurance?

Bearing in mind that cycling organisations give away insurance for free to members anyway the cost of providing it must be very low, so presumably any successful claims on it are negligible.

Motor Insurance is a special case as the damages and financial loss a car can do to others is often very large, so it makes sense to ensure that anyone who wishes to drive one carries some sort of guaranteed ability to cover costs if they were to **** up. For other activities, this level of indemnity is probably unrealistic, although obviously it doesn’t exempt eg walkers, cyclists, skateboarders, wheelchairists and pogostickers from liability if they were to cause an accident…it’s just that they are orders of magnitude less likley to to cause big costs if they do.

Where would you draw the line re compulsory insurance…a 3 year old on an Islabike balancebike in the park?

No. It’s not.

yes it is…

They gave him space as they overtook, moved back into the lane and then carried on parallel to the curb, not cutting him out and actually leaving that space he was trying to undertake into.

He then antagonistically looked at the passenger as he undertook as if they were doing something wrong whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.

If he hadn’t have done that then there would not have been the incident.

The cyclist may have contributed to the erm, shall we say “point of contention”* but only 1 person escalated it to a traffic incident (contact between vehicle/person) and then escalated it to further to physical assault.

*but this seems to stem from the fairly universal thought that motorists should be able to overtake a cyclist at any point and the cheeky oiks shouldn’t then reciprocate when motorist then gets held up, and of course people don’t take criticism of their driving very well on the whole.

their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.

apart from driving whilst on the fone.

Not really sure why some people struggle to accept that you can say that the cyclist may have done stuff that was less than ideal, while also saying that IN NO WAY MEANS IT WAS HIS FAULT that he got assaulted.

Friend of mine left her bike unlocked on the back of her truck outside a shop – it got nicked. The only people to blame are the scumbags that nicked it, that doesn’t mean that leaving your bike unlocked outside a shop is a good plan though.

It really does seem like everything has to be black and white for some people or they genuinely can’t handle it.

As explained in my link above, household insurers give it away for free as well.

Find myself somewhat dumbfounded some people think the cyclist was responsible for being assaulted rather then the assaulter. Nothing else to say really. /out.

He then antagonistically looked at the passenger

Inference much!? how do you know how he looked at them? All you know is his head/camera turned in that direction. And since when does looking at someone funny get you a beating anyway?

whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.

Comparing crap driving to lots of other crap driving doesn’t mean it was reasonable.

Ask yourself if driving like that in a driving test would get you a mark?

Since the driving test is the bare minimum requirement to be allowed to legally drive on our roads, anything that would get you marked down in a test is not really reasonable*, whether other people do it as well or not.

*obviously occasional leeway required for genuine mistakes for any road user, but you’re still in the wrong if you do it. And the standard of driving and action from other road users should be enough to ensure that any minor mistake doesn’t earn you a collision or a kicking.

And that’s before you even open the can of worms that is the driver being on the phone.

Since the driving test is the bare minimum requirement to be allowed to legally drive on our roads

whilst I agree I think the courts tend to differ, doing stuff that would probably have the examiner telling you to stop the car so he could walk back to the test centre seems to pass the “reasonable” test when argued in court.

their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.

Overtaking when unsafe
Using phone whilst driving
Knocks cyclist off bike with vehicle

Aye it is indeed reasonable driving and no mistake

yes it is…

It’s still not.

They gave him space as they overtook, moved back into the lane and then carried on parallel to the curb, not cutting him out and actually leaving that space he was trying to undertake into.

Cyclist is allowed to make progress.

He then antagonistically looked at the passenger as he undertook as if they were doing something wrong whereas their driving looked pretty reasonable for city center driving.

Impossible to tell from the video

If he hadn’t have done that then there would not have been the incident.

Doesn’t matter. He did not behave in a manner which warranted criminal assault. There is only one person in the wrong here and it’s not the cyclist.

Find myself somewhat dumbfounded some people think the cyclist was responsible for being assaulted rather then the assaulter. Nothing else to say really. /out.

Your life must be quite difficult if you are dumbfounded by things which you have only imagined happening.

whilst I agree I think the courts tend to differ, doing stuff that would probably have the examiner telling you to stop the car so he could walk back to the test centre seems to pass the “reasonable” test when argued in court.

Sadly yes 🙁 but that’s a whole other topic right there!

Inference much!? how do you know how he looked at them? All you know is his head/camera turned in that direction.

why did he turn to look in that direction for so long then if not to look at the van ?

Comparing crap driving to lots of other crap driving doesn’t mean it was reasonable.

watch again, the van didn’t do anything bad until he cut in to knock the cyclist down, before then it was normal driving.

Overtake was unnecessary otherwise the cyclist wouldn’t have been able to undertake him straight away.

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

A slight correction is required here. Road tax is based on vehicle emissions and engine size. Do you have the same argument with cars that don’t have to pay road tax due to their low emissions?

why did he turn to look in that direction for so long then if not to look at the van

Your claim was that he looked at them antagonistically not that he looked at the van.

IE you said he looked in a certain way not at a certain thing

I only read the last post… there really are some pillocks blaming the cyclist, aren’t there?? Don’t answer, I ain’t reading any more. Maybe he was carrying an offensive helmet light, maybe he looked in the wrong direction at the wrong time. Bloody cyclists eh. 🙄

it was normal driving.

is it normal to use your phone?

is it normal to overtake when there is not enough space to get past and you then get “undertaken” by the thing you overtook?

Some of the areguments on here are at least intellectually defendable if untrue Yours is just factually untrue unless you wish to call illegal and poor judgement “normal driving” – you may have a point there 😉

flanagaj – no-one on here said that, they were just quoting a typically ridiculous and ill-informed comment made on the Daily Mail website

Yup, normal, everyday, not-that-good city driving up to the stop at the dust cart turning. Not very attentive (on the phone) not a lot of foresight, automatically overtaking the cyclist despite the turning lorry ahead, not realising (or caring) that he was boxing in a cyclist at the upcoming stop.

That sort of driving winds me up, but thug in the van probably didn’t even think. Cyclist then responds to this with an undertake at a risk spot, then cuts in front of the van, just as the van has enough room to start moving.

If someone cuts you up while you’re driving, if you then take the next opportunity to cut them up, is that standing up for yourself in the face of bad driving, or is it more bad driving?

2 wrongs don’t make a right.

And:blah, blah, blah – done it to death already: None Of This Excuses The Voilent Actions That Followed, It’s Just An Attempt To Understand What Happened And Learn From It, That’s All.

Or NOTETVATFIJAATUWHALFITA, if anyone needs to copy and paste for later.

He got punched because he looked at the van? Seriously?

That’s up there with being arrested for wearing a loud shirt in a built up area.

is he wearing the shirt antagonistically?

made the bbc website now. He’ll probably hand himself in soon.

thought they were seeking the cyclist, I should hope with the evidence available they already know exactly who the driver is even with our hard pressed underfunded police force and the low priority cycling related incidents seem to garner.
So more a case of giving them a call rather than handing himself in no?

Or NOTETVATFIJAATUWHALFITA, if anyone needs to copy and paste for later.

I’ll add it to the lexicon

just watching the first 30 seconds of that video (before the van incident) reminds me why there are so few people using bikes as part of their daily life in the UK. small, narrow lanes (not helped by bollards) and the sheer volume of traffic.

i returned “home” over christmas to Chelmsford (not really “home”) and was shocked at the number of cars going through town on a normal day. at rush hour it was crazy bad.

**** commuting by bike through that. in fact, sod it all together.

maybe i’m lucky here in Germany that there are separated bike paths running paralell to just about every major road. many of the bike paths are not ideal, but they do prevent you putting yourself in the wrong position.

Cyclist cuts in front of van just as the rubbish truck is clear enough for the van driver to get past.

I wouldn’t done that, it would have failed my “Dick Move? Y/N” test, even given the previous dick move by the van driver. What’s the point?

+1

rider could have avoided the incident if he held back just a touch and let the van go. he may have been in the “right”, but he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

i had an incident a few years back where a woman accelerated past me leaving <3″ between her mirror and my bars. i saw red. pelted past her and blocked her turn onto a large 6 lane road. she stopped. and the then gunned it into me. fortunately i sprung off the bike and managed to ninja-roll my way to safety.

since then i’ve been less reluctant to put myself infront of cars with idiot drivers.

take it easy, guys.

the only reason he was able to undertake again so quickly was because of the vehicle in front of the van turning left. He then undertook across the junction, which is something the highway code advises not to do.

As I say he was passed with reasonable distance.

The cyclist was shit undertaking him but the behaviour of the van driver is unjustifiable.

“Aracer – As explained in my link above, household insurers give it away for free as well.”

Aye – soz..post crossed

the only reason he was able to undertake again so quickly was because of the vehicle in front of the van turning left. He then undertook across the junction, which is something the highway code advises not to do.

The driver should not have overtaken in the first place.

At which point does he cut in front of the van? I’ve watched several times and still can’t spot it.

The vehicle which was slowing down and indicating before the van overtook. There was nowhere near as much space as the HC recommends on the overtake.