Unbelievable today

lostboysaint

That.

Postie John

I'm late to the 'party' on this one, but am a little surprised on the level of support you're getting.

Any situation like this, first and foremost you have to look at what you could have done to prevent the situation from happening, and from that video there's plenty.

Your road positioning is terrible, irrespective of the road and it's profile.
You were 2,3 and 4 abreast.
You on the wrong side of the road.
You were showing no respect of other road users.

You need to take responsibility for your own actions before pointing the finger.

I'm surprised the police went for this, as my first reaction was:-
'well what did you expect, you asked for that'.

If fella has lost his job, because he reacted badly to your selfish riding and your lack of road awareness, you have an awful lot to answer for.

DF33

^^^^^ Ooh, popcorn time..

Postie John

DF33 wrote:

^^^^^ Ooh, popcorn time..

Not really.
I'm not being contraversal for the sake of it, and I won't be arguing my point, as there's not much else to say.

jim453

Postie John wrote:

DF33 wrote:

^^^^^ Ooh, popcorn time..

Not really.
I'm not being contraversal for the sake of it, and I won't be arguing my point, as there's not much else to say.

I agree, the cyclists are not riding with an awful lot of consideration for those behind them. However, if there is not enough room to safely pass, don't pass. The bikers are right to be annoyed but the over take was insane right before a bend too. And the act of pushing individuals inwards to make room is unbelievable.

So, I understand why you won't be arguing your point - you're wrong.

Postie John

I'd be pleased for the OP, to answer this:-

Does he feel, the m/cyclist would have done the same had he be riding single file, or a tight 2?

essjaydee

I don't know and can't answer that, but is it acceptable to hit someone because they are in your way and being annoying :?: I guess the law needs changing to reflect this

Said in previous posts that I have learnt lessons from this.

What's done is done now, but I have 2 points to add;

1) Irrespective of my actions regarding riding standards, road positioning etc, he attempted to strike me, and did make contact, and according to current English laws, that is an assualt, which is what he was found guilty of.

2) As a social worker who works with vulnerable people, would you expect him to get away with assaulting people as long as it's not work related :roll:

Gizmodo

Postie John wrote:

I'd be pleased for the OP, to answer this:-

Does he feel, the m/cyclist would have done the same had he be riding single file, or a tight 2?

So what you are saying is that anyone who breaks the law themselves deserves what they get.

So the prostitutes murdered by Peter Sutcliffe would be alive today had they not been prostitutes, so it was their own fault really. Good argument! :roll:

Postie John

Both fair comments, as said I'm not after a troll-fest. (in response to the OP not the post from Gizmodo)

But I say he wouldn't have assaulted you, had you been behaving properly.

He had no right to strike you, so fair enough.

We are the lowest of the low, we all ride around with targets on our backs.
With that in mind we need to make sure we don't make dangerous situations worse.

I don't believe, from that film, the m/c was 100% guilty and you were a completely innocent victim.

Welsh_Wizard

I am a cyclist & motorcyclist so can see both sides of the coin. He was wrong to touch you and almost cause a really bad accident but then your road cycling has an awful lot of bad points.

If you only wanted him warned, or you would have accepted his apology why did you support such a prosecution? Whilst the police are duty bound to investigate a complaint, 9/10 there is a far more desirable 'local resolution' option. Pushing for assault, which you asked for, means this guys life is seriously changed - for what? Bragging rights at best between MC's & cyclists??

Before committing to such a course of action perhaps a discussion with a local traffic officer would have been better, rather than some jumped up PCSO who likely doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

A real sad story in my opinion from start to finish.

jim453

Postie John wrote:

I'd be pleased for the OP, to answer this:-

Does he feel, the m/cyclist would have done the same had he be riding single file, or a tight 2?

Whilst we're talking hypothetically John, would your opinion of the incident be any different had the contact from the motorbiker caused our guy to come off and perhaps take a few of cycling mates out too.

Postie John

That is a good point I had thought about.

It certainly would have made a very bad situation even worse.

But wouldn't have changed the reasons behind the offence.

Had I been bouncing down the tarmac I would have been royally fcuked off with the m/c.
But I still would have felt the need to say to the OP, he had to take some responsibility.

Cleat Eastwood

Welsh_Wizard wrote:

Pushing for assault, which you asked for, means this guys life is seriously changed - for what?

For an act that the motorcyclist made - whether in ignorance or not. The cyclist did nothing wrong in this incident. If the guy on the motor bike believed he was correct in assaulting someone else why did he lie in court. You assault some one and there are consequences, you lie in court and there are consequences. Bottom line = a bad 'un got caught.

jim453

Postie John wrote:

That is a good point I had thought about.

It certainly would have made a very bad situation even worse.

But wouldn't have changed the reasons behind the offence.

Had I been bouncing down the tarmac I would have been royally fcuked off with the m/c.
But I still would have felt the need to say to the OP, he had to take some responsibility.

There is no doubt that the cyclist was riding inconsiderately. I'm not terribly certain he was breaking any laws but that's moot anyway. The motorcyclist, however, was riding like a total moron and a criminally dangerous one at that. He did not have to go passing the cyclists at that very dangerous point before a bend, he chose to. There was not enough room to pass safely, he chose to do it anyway. He then chooses to show off in front of all his mates and shove the poorly positioned cyclist inwards.

It's harsh that he now loses his job (perhaps). I think he should be counting himself fortunate that he doesn't have someone else's death or very very serious injury on his conscience.

Welsh_Wizard

Well the problem being you could argue, although tedious, that the cyclists are in actual fact breaking the law themselves. It clearly states in the Highway Code (Rule 66) that you should never ride more than 2 abreast, and if going around a bend, single file.

The Highway Code is and can be used as a sensibility test. If your riding/driving differs significantly from these rules you have grounds for driving/riding without due care and attention. There is even a 'dangerous cycling' offence.

This goes back to my original statement. The OP really should have had a chat with a traffic cop or response cop before making this 'assault' prosecution. For me the situation is simple, the cyclist is in the wrong and the m/c is in the wrong therefore words of advice and a shake of hands nothing more.

Yeah, something more serious MAY have happened but it didn't. If UK Law was based on what may or may not happen, christ alive, every single one of us would be in prison.

And another note. What a shit solicitor the m/c had. Trying to talk his way out of it with a crap pothole excuse? He would have had better chance to admit touching the cyclist on the simple basis that he had chosen his line and the cyclist was moving towards him as he past - he therefore put his hand out to stop contact. Considering the above note of riding more than 2 abreast, that action would not have been unreasonable considering the cyclist had no idea where the m/c was and is clearly not riding in a straight line.

jim453

Welsh_Wizard wrote:

Well the problem being you could argue, although tedious, that the cyclists are in actual fact breaking the law themselves. It clearly states in the Highway Code (Rule 66) that you should never ride more than 2 abreast, and if going around a bend, single file.

The Highway Code is and can be used as a sensibility test. If your riding/driving differs significantly from these rules you have grounds for driving/riding without due care and attention. There is even a 'dangerous cycling' offence.

This goes back to my original statement. The OP really should have had a chat with a traffic cop or response cop before making this 'assault' prosecution. For me the situation is simple, the cyclist is in the wrong and the m/c is in the wrong therefore words of advice and a shake of hands nothing more.

Yeah, something more serious MAY have happened but it didn't. If UK Law was based on what may or may not happen, christ alive, every single one of us would be in prison.

And another note. What a shoot solicitor the m/c had. Trying to talk his way out of it with a crap pothole excuse? He would have had better chance to admit touching the cyclist on the simple basis that he had chosen his line and the cyclist was moving towards him as he past - he therefore put his hand out to stop contact. Considering the above note of riding more than 2 abreast, that action would not have been unreasonable considering the cyclist had no idea where the m/c was and is clearly not riding in a straight line.

Even if they were breaking the law, it makes no difference and the moron on the motorcycle is unjustified whatever. Like it or not, it is for the police to decide who is breaking the law and take action, not some bonehead on his new CBR (or whatever).

I disagree with pretty much everything you have written. As I said, the guy needs to be counting himself lucky no one was killed as a result of his wreckless and criminal behaviour.

Welsh_Wizard

Haha fair enough. Ironic I guess as I agree with most of what your saying. Yeah, it was not up to the motorcyclist to decide how other people use the road and he is lucky that no one was injured.

My point is simple I guess. There is more than one way to skin a cat and from ALL things considered, the cyclist, the m/c etc etc, keeping this as a traffic matter would have better resolved the situation - a fine/points on a suitable driving offence is far more reasonable than taking away this mans livelihood and potentially depriving the people he looks after their care too. That, is like you say, a moot point though

Postie John

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

For an act that the motorcyclist made - whether in ignorance or not. The cyclist did nothing wrong in this incident.

And there's the nub of my disagreement.
I don't believe the OP did nothing wrong.

In fairness he himself has said he's learned lessons from the experience, suggesting not even he thinks he' did nothing wrong.
I wonder if he's ventured across to the other side of the road, riding 4 abreast, since?

Once again, no person has the right to strike another, and that has been dealt with.

My issue is could the OP have done more to prevent it happening, to which I think the answer is yes.

Postie John

jim453 wrote:

There is no doubt that the cyclist was riding inconsiderately. I'm not terribly certain he was breaking any laws but that's moot anyway. The motorcyclist, however, was riding like a total moron and a criminally dangerous one at that.

That he did and I don't disagree.
But using your words the case can easily be made that the OP was riding like a total moron.

Did he deserve to be hit, no.
Did he put himself in a position to be hit, yes.

essjaydee

For the record, it was a regular police officer that took the initial report. He watched the footage and Then took my statement. He advised me that it would either be logged as driving without due care or assault charge. We discussed the differences and what each meant, and yes I decided to log it as assault. They took a statement from him and the CPS then called me and said they were taking him to court. I never saw his statement and was never informed that he had shown or stated any apology or remorse.
In court, his solicitor wanted to plead guilty to driving without due care, to which I agreed with. But the senior magistrate over ruled this and said he must stand trial for assault.

At no point during the trial did I get questioned on standard of riding or any breaches of any laws, and I would think either his solicitor or the magistrates would have mentioned this!

With hindsight would I change anything knowing he may lose his job.
No. I feel sorry for him and the effect it may have on his family, but he chose his action at the time for whatever reason, and then after the event tried to lie and wriggle his way out of it under oath!

From the incident occurring to the outcome he (IMO) did not act how a reasonable person should.

essjaydee

Postie John wrote:

jim453 wrote:

There is no doubt that the cyclist was riding inconsiderately. I'm not terribly certain he was breaking any laws but that's moot anyway. The motorcyclist, however, was riding like a total moron and a criminally dangerous one at that.

That he did and I don't disagree.
But using your words the case can easily be made that the OP was riding like a total moron.

Did he deserve to be hit, no.
Did he put himself in a position to be hit, yes.

Disagree, but then I would wouldn't I!
I would agree if he had brushed against me, but he chose to punch me intentionally instead.
How can you possibly say I deserved to be punched! I was on an open road and there was plenty of room to pass as already proven by the other m/c going past.
So if you, for what ever reason, took up more space on your side of the road and a motorist decided to punch you, you would accept this as fair and just would you?

Postie John

essjaydee wrote:

Postie John wrote:

jim453 wrote:

There is no doubt that the cyclist was riding inconsiderately. I'm not terribly certain he was breaking any laws but that's moot anyway. The motorcyclist, however, was riding like a total moron and a criminally dangerous one at that.

That he did and I don't disagree.
But using your words the case can easily be made that the OP was riding like a total moron.

Did he deserve to be hit, no.
Did he put himself in a position to be hit, yes.

Disagree, but then I would wouldn't I!
I would agree if he had brushed against me, but he chose to punch me intentionally instead.
How can you possibly say I deserved to be punched! I was on an open road and there was plenty of room to pass as already proven by the other m/c going past.
So if you, for what ever reason, took up more space on your side of the road and a motorist decided to punch you, you would accept this as fair and just would you?

Hang on, read what I said:-

Did he deserve to be hit, no.

If I felt I had to take some responsibility for my actions within the event, I would be pi$$ed off, angry etc.
Would I insist on the full weight of the law being thrown at the other party, no I wouldn't.

At no point have I said the m/c is in the right, because he isn't.

If you were riding in single file, and this happened, the thread title would be correct.

You weren't, you put yourself in a position to be harmed, therefore it's not really unbelievable someone harmed you.

Have you ridden 4 abreast and on the other side of the road, since?

jim453

Postie John wrote:

jim453 wrote:

There is no doubt that the cyclist was riding inconsiderately. I'm not terribly certain he was breaking any laws but that's moot anyway. The motorcyclist, however, was riding like a total moron and a criminally dangerous one at that.

That he did and I don't disagree.
But using your words the case can easily be made that the OP was riding like a total moron.

Did he deserve to be hit, no.
Did he put himself in a position to be hit, yes.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

We are all constantly in a position to be hit wherever we are riding on the road, single file or out near the middle like our guy. Provided there is someone moronic enough to ride up beside you and push you then you can be hit, that is not the same as 'asking' to be hit or 'putting yourself in a position' to be hit.

The cyclist should take no responsibility whatsoever for having been hit. The braindead m-cyclist chose to ride over and push him and that is where the responsibility for this ends.

I totally agree that he shouldn't have been out near the middle of the road but that has no relevence whatsoever. The Terminator should have stayed behind until it was safe to pass and, if he felt strongly enough about the inconsiderate riding of our hapless friend then he should have contacted the police. And yes, I realise they wouldn't have been able to do anything at all (unless he'd recorded them cycling wrecklessly), but so what, that's unfortunately just how it is.

So from a legal standpoint, the braindonor on the mbike doesn't have a leg to stand on and doesn't deserve to have his actions justified on here. Added to the fact that he lied in the court to worm out of what he absolutely knew was a senseless and criminally dangerous act.

Please don't reply saying it wouldn't have happened if they were riding single file. I know it wouldn't but that has no significance here whatsoever.

Now, you said a while ago that you wouldn't be arguing the point.

Postie John

jim453 wrote:

Please don't reply saying it wouldn't have happened if they were riding single file. I know it wouldn't but that has no significance here whatsoever.

Now, you said a while ago that you wouldn't be arguing the point.

I wish I couldn't argue the point, but I can't leave such a glaring contradiction out there.

It's pretty much the only point, I'm arguing, as there's plenty I agree with.

We all know this wouldn't have happen had the OP been observing the rules of the road.

Do you ride 4 abreast on the other side of the road?

jim453

Postie John wrote:

I'm late to the 'party' on this one, but am a little surprised on the level of support you're getting.

Any situation like this, first and foremost you have to look at what you could have done to prevent the situation from happening, and from that video there's plenty.

Your road positioning is terrible, irrespective of the road and it's profile.
You were 2,3 and 4 abreast.
You on the wrong side of the road.
You were showing no respect of other road users.

You need to take responsibility for your own actions before pointing the finger.

I'm surprised the police went for this, as my first reaction was:-
'well what did you expect, you asked for that'.

If fella has lost his job, because he reacted badly to your selfish riding and your lack of road awareness, you have an awful lot to answer for.

John, I can't be bothered with this. Your first post was very strongly against the OP as I've highlighted. I think this is wrong and that is why I'm going on about it. The OP does not have an awful lot to answer for, don't be ridiculous. Any secondary ramifications for the motorcyclist are his own fault and his own responsibillity REGARDLESS OF WHERE OUR GUY WAS RIDING.

Where I choose to position myself on a road also has no relevance whatsoever.

Postie John

jim453 wrote:

The OP does not have an awful lot to answer for, don't be ridiculous. Any secondary ramifications for the motorcyclist are his own fault and his own responsibillity REGARDLESS OF WHERE OUR GUY WAS RIDING.

Where I choose to position myself on a road also has no relevance whatsoever.

All again, very true.

If only you could leave the massive contradiction alone we could all go away happy.

Of cause it matters where our guy was.
Because if he was were he should be it wouldn't have happened.

Nighty night night.

daviesee

Why on earth are you guys even having this discussion?
The case went to court where all evidence was presented and a judgement made based on the laws of the land and that evidence. If the motorcyclist had any reason to get off, I am sure that his lawyer would have presented this in court.
Everything on this thread following the judgement (including this) is a complete waste of typing time.

Wirral_paul

jim453 wrote:

Welsh_Wizard wrote:

Well the problem being you could argue, although tedious, that the cyclists are in actual fact breaking the law themselves. It clearly states in the Highway Code (Rule 66) that you should never ride more than 2 abreast, and if going around a bend, single file.

Even if they were breaking the law, it makes no difference and the moron on the motorcycle is unjustified whatever. Like it or not, it is for the police to decide who is breaking the law and take action, not some bonehead on his new CBR (or whatever).

I disagree with pretty much everything you have written. As I said, the guy needs to be counting himself lucky no one was killed as a result of his wreckless and criminal behaviour.

I'm with Jim and also disagree with everything you have written! The Highway Code is not a book of laws so maybe you should read up on the subject.

To save you time, if the words must or must not are used in a rule, then that rule is based on a law. If should or should not is used then that isnt based on a law. Clearly rule 66 being proceeded by "should" is the later category (while rule 64 is indeed based on a law for example). Whilst the riding isnt the best in that clip, cyclist have as much right as any other road user to be on the road and they arent breaking any laws. Inconsiderate maybe - but that frankly is irrelevant as to the actions of the idiot on the motorbike. Nobody has the right to hit out like that - and he got all he deserved!! Defend him all you wish John - somehow i doubt you would be so defensive of the biker if he'd hit YOU at speed on your bike and risked YOU having a serious accident

cornerblock

Postie John wrote:

Because if he was were he should be it wouldn't have happened.

No. If the fool on the the motorbike hadn't stuck his arm out it wouldn't have happened. Sleep on it.

jim453

Postie John wrote:

jim453 wrote:

The OP does not have an awful lot to answer for, don't be ridiculous. Any secondary ramifications for the motorcyclist are his own fault and his own responsibillity REGARDLESS OF WHERE OUR GUY WAS RIDING.

Where I choose to position myself on a road also has no relevance whatsoever.

All again, very true.

If only you could leave the massive contradiction alone we could all go away happy.

Of cause it matters where our guy was.
Because if he was were he should be it wouldn't have happened.

Nighty night night.

Oh FFS John, are you trolling?

this, though true, does not make him even partly responsible for what happened. Any more than if he left his phone on the car seat and some scrote smashed his window and took it - If he hadn't left the phone there it wouldn't have happened but he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of the thief. AT ALL. And so if the thief gets caught and sent down for theft then our car owner does NOT have to feel responsible for the fact that the scrote's family has no breadwinner etc.

OUR GUY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AT ALL FOR THE ACTIONS OF A MORON MOTORCYCLIST, REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS RIDING.OUR GUY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AT ALL FOR THE ACTIONS OF A MORON MOTORCYCLIST, REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS RIDING.OUR GUY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AT ALL FOR THE ACTIONS OF A MORON MOTORCYCLIST, REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS RIDING.OUR GUY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AT ALL FOR THE ACTIONS OF A MORON MOTORCYCLIST, REGARDLESS OF WHERE HE WAS RIDING.

You listening John? JOHN?