Cyclists revenge

snaphappyspen

I saw this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaHBc_AGE4&feature=related and wondered if anyone else has experienced similar.

Did you just ride off? Flip them the bird? What do you tend to do if things like this happen?

steve6690

Not sure what I'd do. The cyclist is a cock though. It's pretty obvious right from the start that the car driver is trying to move into the left lane, even before the cyclist appears on the scene. Then he undertakes the car and blocks him moving across.

butcher of bakersfield

It is a bit of an odd manoeuvre from the cyclist. Would've been easier to just hang back and let him in, and he jumped out almost blind too. But it was an appalling display of driving all the same.

To answer the original question. Never knocked anyone's wing mirrors off yet, but I can get a bit tetchy at times. Most things in life I deal with very calmly, however I take exception when my life is needlessly put at risk by others. It raises something of a natural primitive response and a few uncharacteristic choice words may leave my facial orifice.

cougie

Can't understand the actions of the cyclist. He seems to be on a short fuse.
Actions like that are only going to lead to some kind of nasty confrontations.
In car v bike clashes - cars will win.

knownothingbozo

Criminal damage - arrest - prosecution - criminal record - fine / imprisonment / community service (meet new friends). hardly seems like a worthwhile potential consequence.

Joeblack

That's disgraceful,

At the end of the day it's not good driving but it's not good cycling either, people make mistakes have to swop lanes and sometimes don't look properly but it's no reason to act in this way and will only serve to push the divide between cyclist and driver further apart.

It worries me that this has been posted under the heading "cyclist revenge" as if you agree with the action and are championing it in some way, I hope this is not the case.

diy

Agree with the above. Everyone was driving in a discourteous way, cyclist didn't really give the driver any time to see him before losing his rag. Criminal damage is not the answer. Cyclist was getting frustrated that the traffic wasn't leaving gaps for him to progress. Get used to it, motorcylists have to deal with this all the time.

jimmies

cyclist is the knob there....the car driver was in the wrong lane trying to get across.....badly....but they were indicating their intention to moves across.

Cyclist was just a douche imho.

MattC59

Revenge ? What for ? Cyclist behaved like a c*nt ! If he'd done that to me I'd have chased the f*cker down the street !

Joeblack

MattC59 wrote:

Revenge ? What for ? Cyclist behaved like a c*nt ! If he'd done that to me I'd have chased the f*cker down the street !

Agreed!!!

butcher of bakersfield

MattC59 wrote:

Revenge ? What for ? Cyclist behaved like a c*nt ! If he'd done that to me I'd have chased the f*cker down the street !

And so did the driver. He nearly hits a car trying to force his way in, then forces a cyclist out of the lane, who OK, could've been more considerate/alert himself, but the driver's still intentionally forcing their way in when the cyclist's out in front.

It's a very aggressive and potentially dangerous piece of driving. Not saying the actions of the cyclist are right. But I'm wondering what makes it OK for you to hypothetically 'chase him down the street'? What would you do when you caught him? And would that not put you on an equal level of c*ntery?

MattC59

butcher of bakersfield wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Revenge ? What for ? Cyclist behaved like a c*nt ! If he'd done that to me I'd have chased the f*cker down the street !

And so did the driver. He nearly hits a car trying to force his way in, then forces a cyclist out of the lane, who OK, could've been more considerate/alert himself, but the driver's still intentionally forcing their way in when the cyclist's out in front.

It's a very aggressive and potentially dangerous piece of driving. Not saying the actions of the cyclist are right. But I'm wondering what makes it OK for you to hypothetically 'chase him down the street'? What would you do when you caught him? And would that not put you on an equal level of c*ntery?

Ok, so the driver was trying to bully the other car out of the way, but this is a separate incident to the cyclist issue. The cyclist pulls up behind the two cars, so he can see what' going on and that the car wants to move left. He then decides to undertake the car, whilst it's indicating left. Not only does he do this, but he starts his move by sitting right behind the C-pillar, right in the drivers blind spot. He didn't force the cyclist out of the way, the cyclist conducted a move which gets tons of cyclists killed every year; he went up the inside of a vehicle that's indicating, and clearly trying to move left.

What would make it ok to chase him down the street, would be the damage to my car and wanting to attempt to get his details. :roll:

Sentral

I've seen this one before. Watch too many and it'll give you a real negative vibe about cycling on the road. Not a good thing...

I don't think the cyclist actions were justified here, but videos are often taken out of context. We don't have any audio, and we havent seen what may have happened previous to the incident. The driver may have been verbally provoking the cyclist which lead him to react in that way, but then again the cyclist may have just been pissed off with bad driving earlier in his ride.

Either way, actions like these will only make things worse. If you want to ride on the roads you just have to realise there are fuc*wits on the road and get on with it. Sad fact of life :roll:

amaferanga

MattC59 wrote:

Revenge ? What for ? Cyclist behaved like a c*nt ! If he'd done that to me I'd have chased the f*cker down the street !

To get your revenge you mean?

diy

Criminal damage is an indictable offence, giving you the citizen, power of arrest (as per serious organised crime and police act 2005). Further you would have the power to use reasonable force to detain the person until an officer could assist.

BowtomePhil

Myself and a mate were out cycling yesterday and got chased by a car. The thing is he nearly wiped us out and when we let him know , he didn't apologise just chased us after we had gone a mile.

What happened was this:

We were single line cycling and he wanted to turn right(was coming the other way), he looked out of the window to talk to somebody left side of the road for him, he then started to drive down our side of the road towards us and couldn't turn into the turning as there was a car there. We braked and swerved and missed him, no apology, just gave us the finger. We cycled off, he chased pulled alongside, we said open your eyes(watered down) and he said nothing, drove off, turned round and went back to where he nearly wiped us out.

cougie

Thats the thing - some motorists/idiots act first and think later.

Mate and me have almost been hit by a car who rounded a bend on our side of the road and then beeped at US !

BowtomePhil

To be honest, it can happen when you are in a car, or scooter, motorbike etc. I commute to the train station on a scooter and nearly got taken out Friday, he did apologise profusely, I just said that's fine. I have had many close shaves driving my car, in fact more on scooter and car than bike.

negativelycra

Sorry, but that cyclist is an arse, and a coward. He undertakes a car in front of him that is indicating lef, putting himself in danger. Next, gets pissy, then heroically damages someone's car, and runs away.
I can't believe anyone could see that behaiour as acceptible.

Mikey23

Appalling and inexcusable behaviour... Hope his hand hurts as a reminder ...

StillGoing

diy wrote:

Criminal damage is an indictable offence, giving you the citizen, power of arrest (as per serious organised crime and police act 2005). Further you would have the power to use reasonable force to detain the person until an officer could assist.

Err no it isn't. Sub £5,000 and it is a summary offence and therefore does not carry a general power of arrest for a non-warranted officer, and it's the Serious and Organised Crime And Police Act 2006.

snaphappyspen

I wasn't in anyway saying that that the cyclists actions were right. I was just curious, as i have been in many tetchy situations where cars have pulled out on me when they shouldn't etc, i tend to just give a mucky look to them.

I was just curious as to how others dealt with these situations, the video was merely an example.

StillGoing

snaphappyspen wrote:

I wasn't in anyway saying that that the cyclists actions were right. I was just curious, as i have been in many tetchy situations where cars have pulled out on me when they shouldn't etc, i tend to just give a mucky look to them.

I was just curious as to how others dealt with these situations, the video was merely an example.

...of how not to deal with a similar situation. The cyclist is clearly in no doubt the car is trying to move over way before the incident, but chooses to be a cock. Idiots like him feed the trash reporters everywhere.

diy

philthy3 wrote:

diy wrote:

Criminal damage is an indictable offence, giving you the citizen, power of arrest (as per serious organised crime and police act 2005). Further you would have the power to use reasonable force to detain the person until an officer could assist.

Err no it isn't. Sub £5,000 and it is a summary offence and therefore does not carry a general power of arrest for a non-warranted officer, and it's the Serious and Organised Crime And Police Act 2006.

Search again.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
I'm aware that Low value Criminal damage can be heard by magistrates, the mode of trial does not change the category of offence Fennell is precedent I think]:

Read points 23 on.. The two acts being referred to are the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980

Fennell sets out the difficulty with claiming that low value criminal damage is a summary offence for the purposes of 24A of PACE (as inserted by SOCA). The difficulty is that the Interpretation Act 1978, Sch 1 provides that "the way or ways in which an offence is triable are to be construed without regard to the effect, if any, of section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 on the mode of trial in a particular case". Once you take s. 22 out of the equation, the argument for saying that low-value criminal damage is a summary offence is dead (from an interpretation pov).

The alternative would be to require the citizen to form a value opinion of the damage being done in advance.

mouth

No wonder that motorists view cyclists as a bunch of self pleasurers is it? Wouldn't have hurt for the cyclist to hang back and let the car move across, a move he tried to start a long time before the cyclist appeared.

StillGoing

diy wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

diy wrote:

Criminal damage is an indictable offence, giving you the citizen, power of arrest (as per serious organised crime and police act 2005). Further you would have the power to use reasonable force to detain the person until an officer could assist.

Err no it isn't. Sub £5,000 and it is a summary offence and therefore does not carry a general power of arrest for a non-warranted officer, and it's the Serious and Organised Crime And Police Act 2006.

Search again.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
I'm aware that Low value Criminal damage can be heard by magistrates, the mode of trial does not change the category of offence Fennell is precedent I think]:

Read points 23 on.. The two acts being referred to are the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980

Fennell sets out the difficulty with claiming that low value criminal damage is a summary offence for the purposes of 24A of PACE (as inserted by SOCA). The difficulty is that the Interpretation Act 1978, Sch 1 provides that "the way or ways in which an offence is triable are to be construed without regard to the effect, if any, of section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 on the mode of trial in a particular case". Once you take s. 22 out of the equation, the argument for saying that low-value criminal damage is a summary offence is dead (from an interpretation pov).

The alternative would be to require the citizen to form a value opinion of the damage being done in advance.

And that is why the SOC&PA is a minefield leaving the public wide open to claims for unlawful arrest. Julianna Mitchell makes reference to this in some of her teachings. The act of knocking someone's wing mirror off is always going to be summary IMO unless aggravated by other factors.

diy

I agree, while it was sensible to allow the citizen the right to arrest on suspicion - fixing the issue that a person performing a valid citizens arrest, could be likely to damages claims if the scroat got off the criminal charges. It introduced the challenge of the person needing to know what offences were indictable or not.

However, unless you are an appeal court judge I'm not sure your "IMO" trumps my references

rodgers73

That sort of stuff from a cyclist or a driver is always a bad move. Just keep your head and move on. Always the best advice really.

Guanajuato

Bloody stupid of the cyclist to put himself in that position. Bloody awful, overly-aggressive driving. In the cyclist's defence, once they've both stopped, the motorist then most definitely drives at him. What we haven't seen is the fairly likely scenario of the car having cut up the cyclist further back. That's judged on the evidence of the overly-aggressive forcing into the other car in the first place. A reason for the behaviour, not an excuse, if that makes sense.