Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

'Attacked' cyclist sought by Essex Police

Ian.BIan.B Posts: 732
edited January 2015 in Commuting chat

Posts

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here
    Rule number one: don't give mentalists a stupid reason to lash out.

    No one should be punched like that for any reason but I imagine the mentalist wouldn't have knocked him off and hit him had the victim not shouted about phones.

    Should still get done.
  • Kieran_BurnsKieran_Burns Posts: 9,757
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    Let's see...

    1. Undertaking a van at the approach to a left turn
    2. Bin lorry turning just ahead
    3. Looking behind to shout at the driver rather than paying attention to the road in front
    4. Oversized box strapped to the back of his bike

    He could have ended up under the wheels of the lorry or maybe head first with the rubbish. Dude need to calm down and pay attention to the world around.
  • jamescojamesco Posts: 687
    Kurako wrote:
    Let's see...
    Van driver deliberately knocks down cyclist and then gets out to assault him (again).

    Hope he gets the book thrown at him.
  • JackPozziJackPozzi Posts: 1,191
    Kurako wrote:
    Let's see...

    1. Undertaking a van at the approach to a left turn
    2. Bin lorry turning just ahead
    3. Looking behind to shout at the driver rather than paying attention to the road in front
    4. Oversized box strapped to the back of his bike

    He could have ended up under the wheels of the lorry or maybe head first with the rubbish. Dude need to calm down and pay attention to the world around.

    Does that count as an undertake? The van doesn't really complete the overtake before braking because of the bin lorry turning, cyclist didn't have much choice there, would probably not have stopped in time.
  • petemadocpetemadoc Posts: 2,667
    This one has been doing the rounds on Facebook with the usual 600 comments from various sections of society.

    The cyclist is a bit of an 'entitlist' (think I just made that word up). And the van driver is clearly a brain dead thug.

    By what really bothers me about this and similar incidents is; why is it not considered assault with a deadly weapon? If you drive your car at someone with the intention of hitting them surely you could easily kill them. From experience and reading various things the police just don't take it seriously.


    I hope they proceed with a prosecution on this one.
  • I can't believe that here and on other forums cyclists are actually trying to defend the driver.

    OK, perhaps not the best example of cycling, but hands up those who have never, ever ridden in a way that with hindsight and analysis could have been better.

    The punch-up afterwards is not really the issue either.

    The point is he used his van to quite deliberately knock down the cyclist. And that should mean a ban for 5, 10 years and probably jail time as well.

    But, we all know that won't happen because the presumption is always that roads are meant primarily for drivers to get from A to B in the minimum time and without interference from pesky cyclists.

    Possibly unless they actually die, and generally not even then.

    Even if he is prosecuted (unlikely) it will be a few points, a paltry fine and a half day driver awareness course.

    PS Completely unimpressed by him "handing himself in" given his face, registration, employer, contact details, etc are plastered all over the web. Even for Mr Plod pursuing a leisurely and half-hearted investigation of a potential offence against a cyclist I doubt it would be difficult to find him.
  • The RookieThe Rookie Posts: 27,748
    Most likely charge (if any) is dangerous driving (1 year mandatory ban minimum) but the statutory alternative to that is driving without due care and attention (min 3 points).
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 57,278 Lives Here
    Andrew - no-one's defending the driver.
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    PeteMadoc wrote:
    This one has been doing the rounds on Facebook with the usual 600 comments from various sections of society.

    The cyclist is a bit of an 'entitlist' (think I just made that word up).... why is it not considered assault with a deadly weapon?..

    We don't have such an offence in the UK. the use of a deadly weapon can be grounds for establishing attempted murder. But the test for attempted murder is rather high. It would be closer to dangerous driving.
  • OrigamistOrigamist Posts: 807
    Driver has been charged with a public order offence:

    https://twitter.com/MPSHavering/status/ ... 8860553216
  • Obviously the driver's actions are worthy of the police attention they are getting, but completely independent from that, the cyclist is a bit mad.

    If a driver's squeezing you to the kerb and you think he is using his mobile (I think that's what he shouts?), do you make your priority
    a) alerting him to the error of his ways
    b) getting the hell out of his way before you get squashed.

    I can't imagine why the cyclist chose a
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    I actually found a longer version of the vid on youtube. The fellow was going along minding his own business when the van came past then started to slow and that's when the bbc vid starts when he's coming up the inside. It was a pretty [email protected] piece of driving but I think this is a perfect example of what not to do..

    1) It's a perfect left hook opportunity. The van got ahead but not really far enough if it was going to turn. At this point you need to be very wary of going back up the inside.
    2) If the bin lorry ahead does not complete it's turn he's heading on a collision course. You need to be prepared for the fact the lorry may stop unexpectedly. Maybe a ped has stepped out or something else dumb and unexpected.
    3) 1+2 togther. Yikes. If you hit the lorry and fall in front of the van that could get messy!!

    What happened after is beside the point. That's just an extra reminder is that if you suspect a driver is totally incompetent or a complete nutcase the best thing is to stay behind and let them go and bother somebody else.

    It's not about right and wrong it's about getting home in one piece.
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    I watched the longer video as well as my first thought was I'd never be in that position in the first place.

    The overtake looked fine and I have no idea why the cyclist decided to undertake straight afterwards.
  • OrigamistOrigamist Posts: 807
    pastryboy wrote:
    I watched the longer video as well as my first thought was I'd never be in that position in the first place.

    The overtake looked fine and I have no idea why the cyclist decided to undertake straight afterwards.

    The van driver's overtake was poor - it's not so much the lateral clearance, which is "below average" at best (the earlier pass by the bin lorry is far worse in this regard), but overtaking whilst braking on the approach to a junction and eating into the stopping distance of the cyclist is the real problem here. The cyclist seems to have continued on the same line and pace - if he had wanted to avoid going on the inside of the van he would have had to slam on his brakes. Some of us might have done this, others might not...
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    I watched it again.

    The missing information is how early/late the bin lorry indicated which would dictate our van driver's actions.

    However, the cyclist should have been looking at the the bin lorry up ahead and easing up seeing the impending turn. Instead they appear to have continued at the same speed and went up the inside of the van. The overtake wasn't perfect but I'd have accepted it and thought nothing of it.

    No need to slam on brakes in my opinion, I'd have been eyes fixed on the lorry and judging my speed based on that. If you know the lorry is turning then you know the van is almost certainly going to slow down.

    I know it sounds easier in hindsight but I just don't have incidents like this in spite of regualar dubious overtakes.
  • Has anyone listened with the sound up? The issue is not, it seems for the driver, with being re-passed. It's the cyclist calling him a muppet for being on his mobile.

    He is, and he is.

    It's that that the driver takes umbrage at.

    So, whilst there is much to criticise our cyclist for, or things that we would do differently, there is simply no excuse. The driver is wrong to be on his mobile. The cyclist calls him out on that illegal act. For that he gets run off the road and assaulted.
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    The quality of the cycling and the van driver's actions are two completely different things. I would think the acceptability of the latter doesn't really need pointing out.

    This is a cycling forum though and I know I've read/watched other people's crashes/incidents and learnt from them so I think it's helpful to have a discussion about how to cycle safer/better. That doesn't mean anyone's saying the driver doesn't have room for improvement too.
  • OrigamistOrigamist Posts: 807
    pastryboy wrote:
    I watched it again.

    The missing information is how early/late the bin lorry indicated which would dictate our van driver's actions.

    However, the cyclist should have been looking at the the bin lorry up ahead and easing up seeing the impending turn. Instead they appear to have continued at the same speed and went up the inside of the van. The overtake wasn't perfect but I'd have accepted it and thought nothing of it.

    No need to slam on brakes in my opinion, I'd have been eyes fixed on the lorry and judging my speed based on that. If you know the lorry is turning then you know the van is almost certainly going to slow down.

    I know it sounds easier in hindsight but I just don't have incidents like this in spite of regualar dubious overtakes.


    Given that the driver was having to brake before he had even executed the overtake, it suggests the overtake was unnecessary as his forward planning was poor – whether the bin lorry signalled his intentions in good time or otherwise. I would hazard there was a queue to get into the side road, given that the bin lorry passed the cyclist considerably earlier and it’s a yellow box junction.

    It appears that the cyclist did judge the bin lorry clearing the junction as it was no longer blocking his path when he came through. With the bin lorry in the side street it also means the van would not be able to turn into the junction and left hook the cyclist. However, given the mentality of the driver, I would not want to be in that position.

    I don’t doubt your cycling prowess.
  • pastryboypastryboy Posts: 1,385
    Whilst I acknowledge what you're saying, I think the cyclist made a choice to undertake and had adequate opportunity not to do so.

    The bin lorry did clear the junction as the cyclist got to it, but only just, I'd be a bit wary of a car on the other side of it waiting to pull out in front of me. I'd also be wary of the van suddenly deciding to turn left -you just never know...

    If this was a driving forum could easily pick apart the overtake but I've seen that many worse I can't get that worked up about it.
  • OrigamistOrigamist Posts: 807
    Arguably, the overtake is the least of driver’s motoring errors – given that he was allegedly on the phone at the time of incident, forced the cyclist into the kerb causing him to crash, and was apparently driving without insurance etc. The police are still investigating these aspects.
  • Kieran_BurnsKieran_Burns Posts: 9,757
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • OrigamistOrigamist Posts: 807

    The victim does not want to press charges, but the driver has been charged with a public order offence. In addition, the motoring offences are being examined according to:

    https://twitter.com/mpshavering/status/ ... 7731115008
  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 24,644 Lives Here
    I didn't think it was up to the individual wether or not the police decide to prosecute someone. Obviously it makes it easier if the victim wants to go ahead as they would be more likely to appear in court. But in this case the video is all over the internet so evidence is hardly lacking and if they wanted to they could prosecute without the victim.
    Hasn't he been charged with something already? I think there is a link on the previous page.

    edit. Origamist beat me to it.
  • diydiy Posts: 6,680
    It isn't up to the victim. But the CPS/police will take this in to account in the event that they decide to go it alone. They often summons the victim anyway in the hope that by the time they get to court they decide to face questions.

    IMO if a victim reports the crime then backs out of cooperating (for no reason other than they can't be bothered) then they are just wasting everyone's time, but in this case the victim didn't report it to plod and it looks like they can make the public order fixed penalty stick on the basis that the scroat came forward. Not a bad deal for someone who came forward - not that it would have taken the police long to find him.
Sign In or Register to comment.