Road Rage + assault, cops do nothing.

rjsterry

jedster wrote:

At the beginning of the video think if the cyclist had pulled up behind the van, its driver may not have even seen him and the rest of the video could have been a lot different.

Quite possibly.

And also if he hadn't cycled but had walked or got a bus like that neanderthal probably thinks he should have then the video would have been a lot different too.

Don't get me wrong, I would have done things differently - I don't have a stupid horn and I filter down the centre rather than squeeze past parked cars - but if you really wanted to appease pillocks like that you wouldnt ride a bike at all.

That's the word right there. That kind of thuggery will not be tackled by everyone just staying out of their way.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

jedster wrote:

At the beginning of the video think if the cyclist had pulled up behind the van, its driver may not have even seen him and the rest of the video could have been a lot different.

Quite possibly.

And also if he hadn't cycled but had walked or got a bus like that neanderthal probably thinks he should have then the video would have been a lot different too.

Don't get me wrong, I would have done things differently - I don't have a stupid horn and I filter down the centre rather than squeeze past parked cars - but if you really wanted to appease pillocks like that you wouldnt ride a bike at all.

That's the word right there. That kind of thuggery will not be tackled by everyone just staying out of their way.

But why would it occur if one did stay out of their way?

:puzzled:

(roll on page 8...)

supersonic

I liked this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXxrxKoyrJQ

danlikesbikes

jedster wrote:

At the beginning of the video think if the cyclist had pulled up behind the van, its driver may not have even seen him and the rest of the video could have been a lot different.

Quite possibly.

And also if he hadn't cycled but had walked or got a bus like that neanderthal probably thinks he should have then the video would have been a lot different too.

Don't get me wrong, I would have done things differently - I don't have a stupid horn and I filter down the centre rather than squeeze past parked cars - but if you really wanted to appease pillocks like that you wouldnt ride a bike at all.

Not sure I agree as if the cyclist had pulled up behind the van instead of attempting an undertake manoeuvre he would have no need to appease the van driver.

I get the feeling that your suggesting the van driver was already in a bad mood & wanted to punch the cyclist. However if you take out of the equation the attempted under take which may or may not have made a grumpy van driver into an annoyed angry driver. All you are left with is a van overtaking a cyclist (where the van driver may or may not be angry) but its when the cyclist beeps his horn that the van pulls over and the driver appears to get out to talk too/punch the cyclist, for some unknown reason the cyclist then beeps his horn after he has overtaken the van too.

To suggest that the cyclist needs to appease the van driver (Pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands) would suggest that the van driver was going to punch the cyclist in the first place and his being on the road on a bike was the sole cause of the violent action as the cyclist had not acceded to his demands of not being on the road on his bike. Which is not how I see it.

Stevo_666

supersonic wrote:

I liked this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXxrxKoyrJQ

If we're being charitable, he's got a very different view from most people of how much space a car/bus should give you when passing. He's so concerned with road safety that he stops to argue with the bus driver in the middle of a busy road, forces cars to go partly onto the other side of the road to pass him and risks getting rear ended :roll:

What a prick.

supersonic

I couldn't believe when he stopped in the road to argue with the driver!

supersonic

Anyway, back to the original post, and in reference to the thread title, someone I know well who is not a member here had this comment on FaceBook about the same thing:

Why are people on here suggesting the Police couldn’t/wouldn’t do anything about this? Utter rubbish, the cyclist even acknowledges this on the report. But just to clarify a few things. Firstly the report suggests the man was taken in to be interviewed, this means he was arrested, taken to a Police custody area and placed in a cell. He was then interviewed under caution, where he admitted the offence when presented with the video evidence. The report suggests he had a clean criminal record. Charging standards dictate that a clean record, admittance of offence and certain types of offence can mean that a suspect is ELIGIBLE for a caution. A common assault (one which leaves no or very minor injuries) is such an offence that fits this criteria. All three must apply for a caution to be administered. In order to receive such a caution he must also be CHARGED with the offence of assault. A caution can be dealt with in the Police station prior to the release from custody. The only other thing that could be done here is he be charged and put before a Magistrate. But given the clean record, common assault charge and guilty plea a Magistrate would simply send him back to the Police station to receive the same caution. So essentially a waste of taxpayer money and court time sending him there, hence why in such circumstances the Police can apply the charge and give the caution. This man will now have a criminal record, which he must declare on any application requiring such information. The caution is also a onetime deal, if he does the same thing again and gets charged he will end up before a Magistrate and he will receive a more severe penalty. The fact he’s received a caution for the offence in the video will add weight to any such punishment. So to sum up, the man in the video will have been arrested, charged, given a caution and a criminal record by Police for his little outburst. The article headline is completely misleading and people should really try and learn a bit more about the justice system before they leap to conclusions.

danlikesbikes

Super that is a very sensible statement.

I only disagree with 1 small part about it getting to court and the Magistrate throwing it back to the Police station for them to deal with as his job would be to find find guilty or not (depending on which court and jury etc when I say he would find him guilty). Can not imagine a case where it would go down the chain from the police to a magistrates court and back for a caution but know there have been a few police officers commenting already on this thread so they could perhaps clarify?

supersonic

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

northstar

It should have gone to court, anything else appears to be trying to sweep it under the carpet, i guess some people here would be happy to be assaulted like this.

tailwindhome

northstar wrote:

It should have gone to court, anything else appears to be trying to sweep it under the carpet, i guess some people here would be happy to be assaulted like this.

So you didn't read Supersonics post then?

supersonic wrote:

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

If P.O. is police officer that doesn't necessarily mean they understand the law

danlikesbikes

supersonic wrote:

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

Well it must be common place then, just would have thought that it would end up being double jeopardy? Sending someone to court, the judge dismissing the case and sending it back to be dealt with by the police, surly the CPS would only take it court if they felt there was a case to answer?

tailwindhome

OK

Assuming the cyclist wasn't injured, what punishment do you think 'angry driver' should have got?

veronese68

TailWindHome wrote:

supersonic wrote:

The bloke who wrote the above is a P.O. ;-).

If P.O. is police officer that doesn't necessarily mean they understand the law

I thought he was a post office.
Good quote from Supersonic I thought, sounded reasonable to me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Sending someone to court, the judge dismissing the case

Where do you get that from?

mybreakfastconsisted

The driver wasn't cautioned. That stuff off facetube is a load of old trousers.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The driver wasn't cautioned. That stuff off facetube is a load of old trousers.

The driver wasn't cautioned because the cyclist wanted apology + cash instead.

danlikesbikes

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Sending someone to court, the judge dismissing the case

Where do you get that from?

Super's mates comments;
he only other thing that could be done here is he be charged and put before a Magistrate. But given the clean record, common assault charge and guilty plea a Magistrate would simply send him back to the Police station to receive the same caution.

By logic a case goes to court & the defendant is either found guilty or not, my doubt was that a Magistrate would take the third option of dismissing a case from court on the basis that it would be better served if the police were to issue a caution.

As I said am no expert but above would seem logical to me but happy if others with more knowledge correct me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Sending someone to court, the judge dismissing the case

Where do you get that from?

Super's mates comments;
he only other thing that could be done here is he be charged and put before a Magistrate. But given the clean record, common assault charge and guilty plea a Magistrate would simply send him back to the Police station to receive the same caution.

By logic a case goes to court & the defendant is either found guilty or not, my doubt was that a Magistrate would take the third option of dismissing a case from court on the basis that it would be better served if the police were to issue a caution.

As I said am no expert but above would seem logical to me but happy if others with more knowledge correct me.

Oh. Well you've not understood it then. The case would have gone to court with an admission from the defendant - a guilty plea. The case is then all about sentencing and the Mags' response is about who gives the sentence and where.

Mags don't dismiss a case when the defendant is in front of them admitting it.

tailwindhome

Surprised Spen hasn't weighed in.

mybreakfastconsisted

As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution.

Van passes a cyclist and his step daughter much too close, the cyclist bangs on the side of the van, the cyclist gets in a fight with the driver, previous good character, charged with and found guilty of assault:

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/1034 ... r/?ref=rss

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The driver wasn't cautioned. That stuff off facetube is a load of old trousers.

The driver wasn't cautioned because the cyclist wanted apology + cash instead.

Precisely

The driver was not charged. He was brought in for interview and initially claimed provocation, that I kicked his van and kicked him in the chest. He changed his story when told there was video evidence. He still claimed I kicked him and the van and only after the officer pointed out that she couldn't see any of that, on his solicitor's advice he finally accepted full responsibility.

Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution. As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution. *I don't think the police are to blame* but the decisions made by Government departments that govern them.

This was a violent, unprovoked attack that has no place in society and I'm very disappointed and angry that the driver will not face criminal consequences.

Cyclist chooses money over criminal consequences, takes the money (saving himself the costs of a civil claim) then complains that he couldn't have had the money *and* criminal consequences.

Bascially, cyclist lets driver off. Brilliant.

danlikesbikes

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Oh. Well you've not understood it then. The case would have gone to court with an admission from the defendant - a guilty plea. The case is then all about sentencing and the Mags' response is about who gives the sentence and where.

Mags don't dismiss a case when the defendant is in front of them admitting it.[/quote]

But by that logic if the defendant had admitted guilt & was in front of a magistrate would the magistrate agree he was guilty & then for sentencing instead of issuing the sentence himself send him back to the police station to be sentenced?

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Van passes a cyclist and his step daughter much too close, the cyclist bangs on the side of the van, the cyclist gets in a fight with the driver, previous good character, charged with and found guilty of assault:

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/1034 ... r/?ref=rss.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I think it's a mistake to judge systems on a statistical sample of 1

Quite

[url=tp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394015/Cyclist-killed-motorist-road-rage-attack-driver-opened-car-door-him.html]Cyclist gets 18mths for killing driver in Road Rage attack[/url]

mybreakfastconsisted

yes, nobody died in the incident we're discussing, although a similar road rage incident had a very different conclusion.

Bristol: A motorist has just been jailed for four months after attacking a cyclist who pointed out to the driver that he was encroaching on him in the bike lane.
The driver took offence to this, overtook, blocked the cyclist’s path, got out and pushed David Lowry into a hedge. Witnesses then saw him punch My Lovell several times in the face, then as Mr Lovell used his arms to prevent further attack, he received a headbutt.
The driver, David Lowry then got a friend to write a letter as if they were an independent witness to try and avoid prosecution.
In interview, Mr Lowrey claimed that it was the cyclist who was the aggressor and they had ended up scuffling and clashing heads.

Jailing him for a total of four months, Judge Michael Longman said: "This was a very unpleasant incident and because of the behaviour that you decided to pursue once you had been identified, you have made the situation much worse for yourself and the offence much more serious."

http://twowheelsandbeyond.blogspot.co.u ... clist.html

Altercation between driver and cyclist? Check.

Driver exits vehicle and assaults cyclist? Check.

Driver tells lies to the cops to try to evade punishment? Check.

Ben6899

I just watched the bus video.

The cyclist is an utter utter bellend. I don't condone him getting a clip round the chops - not at all! - but it really was a matter of time.

mybreakfastconsisted

I know the camera can make things look further away than they are, but I'd be happy if I was overtaken by buses like that. Couldn't see anything wrong with it.

Ben6899

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I know the camera can make things look further away than they are, but I'd be happy if I was overtaken by buses like that. Couldn't see anything wrong with it.

Yes. The bus was maybe a foot into the left hand lane. Also, the cyclist knew the bus was coming and the left hand lane appears to be smooth and otherwise empty. He should have momentarily moved out of primary. Hell I've even done this in the car, if someone behind wanted to get past on a single carriageway road.

This chap thinks he's the authority and it only took a Jimmy Crankie lookalike to remind him that he most certainly isn't.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

yes, nobody died in the incident we're discussing, although a similar road rage incident had a very different conclusion..

IANAL but know that detail is important.

In this case I would guess that the assault is of a more 'serious' nature when a 'headbutt' is involved. That steps it up a level and rightly so.

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

jedster wrote:

At the beginning of the video think if the cyclist had pulled up behind the van, its driver may not have even seen him and the rest of the video could have been a lot different.

Quite possibly.

And also if he hadn't cycled but had walked or got a bus like that neanderthal probably thinks he should have then the video would have been a lot different too.

Don't get me wrong, I would have done things differently - I don't have a stupid horn and I filter down the centre rather than squeeze past parked cars - but if you really wanted to appease pillocks like that you wouldnt ride a bike at all.

That's the word right there. That kind of thuggery will not be tackled by everyone just staying out of their way.

But why would it occur if one did stay out of their way?

:puzzled:

(roll on page 8...)

I think that's a rather rose tinted view. This sort of thing isn't just reserved for self-righteous types with headcams and Airzounds. Nor does the lack of such devices and a forgiving disposition insulate you from contact with such knuckledraggers as several forum members can testify.