Van runs over cyclist, then driver gets out and assaults him.

Fathead

Timberrrrrrrr

Scumbag, hopefully he gets charged with attempted murder.

Pinch Flat

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Scumbag, hopefully he gets charged with attempted murder.

a good case for aggrevated assault I would have thought. He's as good as nabbed from the video footage.

neris

Man in a white van who does patios, driveways and tarmac. No surprises of assault there then

Timberrrrrrrr

neris wrote: »

Man in a white van who does patios, driveways and tarmac. No surprises of assault there then

We should all call that number and send emails to the address on the side of the van

Augmerson

neris wrote: »

Man in a white van who does patios, driveways and tarmac. No surprises of assault there then

That's a bit prejudiced don't you think? Plenty of people drive vans and do trades and are fine people especially on the roads.

Crocked

Fair play to the second cyclists who came to his assistance

MayoAreMagic

Classic case of road rage. The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window to get off the phone, and the guy shouldn't have tried to run him off the road.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

neris wrote: »

Man in a white van who does patios, driveways and tarmac. No surprises of assault there then

This is the same thought process motorists use towards cyclists. One that we are trying to move away from.

Alek

The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window to get off the phone, and the guy shouldn't have tried to run him off the road.

Don't you think that the latter action is too disproportional to the former to put it in one sentence?

MayoAreMagic

Alek wrote: »

Don't you think that the latter action is too disproportional to the former to put it in one sentence?

I was more just stating what had occurred than deciding the proportions of blame.

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Classic case of road rage. The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window to get off the phone, and the guy shouldn't have tried to run him off the road.

The cyclist was more than justified in shouting at the van for being on the phone, he was cutting him off completely!
Undeniably disproportionate reaction from the van driver. On the phone, cut off cyclist then hits him for 'touching the motor'?!! Road rage on van drivers behalf there!

MayoAreMagic

gadetra wrote: »

The cyclist was more than justified in shouting at the van for being on the phone, he was cutting him off completely!
Undeniably disproportionate reaction from the van driver. On the phone, cut off cyclist then hits him for 'touching the motor'?!! Road rage on van drivers behalf there!

Look, nobody is trying to justify the actions of the lunatic driving the van. I simply stated what happened.

Alek

The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window

That's not stating the fact. Its putting a part of the blame on the cyclist.

MayoAreMagic

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Classic case of road rage. The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window to get off the phone, and the guy shouldn't have tried to run him off the road.

That is...

Zyzz

neris wrote: »

Man in a white van who does patios, driveways and tarmac. No surprises of assault there then

smacl

Some more on it here. Essex police keen to follow it up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That is...

Guy was on his phone and in the eyes of the other road user was not paying enough attention as he overtook him coming up to a left turning vehicle. The video would confirm this as he cut him off with the left turning vehicle.

I would have dropped back myself but I also would happily tell the guy to put his phone down as he clearly needs all of his attention for the road at the next junction if he was stopped.

Also kudos to the reporter with the Daily Mail who claimed the driver shouted at the cyclist to get off the phone when it is quite clear from both the video and the Audio that it was the cyclist telling the driver :rolleyes:

Lumen

"You just DRAUVE into the FACKIN MOTAH!"

Love it.

macyard

That's a very wide load on the back of the bike on a narrow street, I would have found a better route to carry that load it make cars overtaking next to impossible

CramCycle

macyard wrote: »

That's a very wide load on the back of the bike on a narrow street, I would have found a better route to carry that load it make cars overtaking next to impossible

How so? a car overtaking should give alot more space then the load on the back of that bike, if they were close enough for it to be an issue then they were far to close.

petethedrummer

Lumen wrote: »

"You just DRAUVE into the FACKIN MOTAH!"

Love it.

That driver is an 18th century German philospher.

seamus

macyard wrote: »

That's a very wide load on the back of the bike on a narrow street, I would have found a better route to carry that load it make cars overtaking next to impossible

Is it wider than a car? No? Then how can it be too wide to ride on a narrow street?

If anything, the cyclist's main oversight was not riding more to the centre of the lane on such a narrow street, but we all occasionally pull left when we're happy that we're still in control and want to not be an arse.

John_Rambo

macyard wrote: »

That's a very wide load on the back of the bike on a narrow street, I would have found a better route to carry that load it make cars overtaking next to impossible

Jesus. Moronic post of 2015 already.

macyard

CramCycle wrote: »

How so? a car overtaking should give alot more space then the load on the back of that bike, if they were close enough for it to be an issue then they were far to close.

They have to give the extra distance to load now rather then the bike, that's a extra 2 ft clearance that they have to give due to the amount that load is out from the bike,.

He should have found a better route as the road is to narrow with that load, he would be fine without the load but the extra clearance needed make cycling on that road with that load unsafe

mathie

Does the van driver do deckings?

Orion

On his phone while driving is a traffic offence. But then you can clearly see the front wheel turn to deliberately knock the cyclist down. That goes beyond road rage - it's a criminal act. He deserves firstly to be fired and then prosecuted.

Orion

macyard wrote: »

They have to give the extra distance to load now rather then the bike, that's a extra 2 ft clearance that they have to give due to the amount that load is out from the bike,.

It's not much wider than the handlebars. Cars should give more than 2 feet clearance when passing a bike anyway.

Alek

The load seems to be approx. 1m wide. That is 25cm to the left and 25cm to the right from the man's shoulders and 20cm to the width of typical straight handlebars...

Skrynesaver

Clear case of vehicular assault, driving is a privilege that should be withdrawn from that driver for life as well as whatever other sanctions the court imposes

John_Rambo

macyard wrote: »

They have to give the extra distance to load now rather then the bike, that's a extra 2 ft clearance that they have to give due to the amount that load is out from the bike,.

He should have found a better route as the road is to narrow with that load, he would be fine without the load but the extra clearance needed make cycling on that road with that load unsafe

That's even more moronic than your previous post.

Alek

Yay! A proper Friday thread.

macyard

Orion wrote: »

It's not much wider than the handlebars. Cars should give more than 2 feet clearance when passing a bike anyway.

Looking at the pics it's a foot wider then the handlebars each side, he should have taken the lane or not used the that road.

If he took the lane this would not happen.

MayoAreMagic

CramCycle wrote: »

Guy was on his phone and in the eyes of the other road user was not paying enough attention as he overtook him coming up to a left turning vehicle. The video would confirm this as he cut him off with the left turning vehicle.

I would have dropped back myself but I also would happily tell the guy to put his phone down as he clearly needs all of his attention for the road at the next junction if he was stopped.

Also kudos to the reporter with the Daily Mail who claimed the driver shouted at the cyclist to get off the phone when it is quite clear from both the video and the Audio that it was the cyclist telling the driver :rolleyes:

But it isn't the job of other road users to correct this, it only escalated the situation. Call me old fashioned, but I would generally think shouting in the window of an overtaking car and calling him a muppet, particularly with two mugs like that glowering out at you, is generally not a good idea.
Also, in fairness, he cut him off after he shouted in the window - a reaction. Way over the top and ridiculously dangerous, but then when you shout at a lunatic and call him a muppet, don't be surprised if he doesn't just call you a muppet back.

It is just road rage is all. One is worse than the other of course, but then that is generally the case with all road rage. Consider the same situation with two cars and it is road rage all day long, isn't it? Same applies here.

Ole Rodrigo

Some vids on his Youtube account:

' Moron Alert '
' Sorry mate but I dont give a f*** '
' Road rage at critical mass rally '
' Angry cyclists '

Poor chap has some awful bad luck. Lucky he has a camera to record it all.

Granolite

macyard wrote: »

Looking at the pics it's a foot wider then the handlebars each side, he should have taken the lane or not used the that road.

If he took the lane this would not happen.

You know I almost want to thank your post it is so bewilderingly misconceived.

Orion

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It is just road rage is all. One is worse than the other of course, but then that is generally the case with all road rage. Consider the same situation with two cars and it is road rage all day long, isn't it? Same applies here.

So if a car deliberately caused a crash with another car we should just walk away saying "boys will be boys"? This is reckless endangerment, vehicular assault, physical assault and the prick should be banned from driving for life at the very least.

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

That's a very wide load on the back of the bike on a narrow street, I would have found a better route to carry that load it make cars overtaking next to impossible

All the other 'bigger' 4 wheeled vehicles didn't have a problem safely overtaking the cyclist.

billie1b

Orion wrote: »

On his phone while driving is a traffic offence. But then you can clearly see the front wheel turn to deliberately knock the cyclist down. That goes beyond road rage - it's a criminal act. He deserves firstly to be fired and then prosecuted.

The van didn't touch the cyclist, the cyclist hit the kerb due to the driver moving in and that dismounted him, I would have hit the brakes personally or held back at the junction, still doesn't excuse the drivers actions though

Pinch Flat

My own view would be that the cyclist was too far left - that bin lorry came way too close overtaking and you had that, the cyclist and a car coming the other way one one point across the road.

Others being on the phone is of no concern to other road users - that's what the police are there for, if he had of cycled defensively (a couple of feet from the kerb), van man couldn't overtake and cut him up. In fairness though the guy driving the van is an ignorant neantherdal so would have likely lead to confrontation anyway (or at least aggressive tailgating / blowing of the horn).

I'm in two minds about cams on bikes - yes they record the evidence and this van driver will more than likely be apprehended and charged and hopefully put off the road (Essex police are on to this and have asked for the cyclist to come forward - which begs the question how would they react if the cyclist had of been seriously injured or killed).

I've had incidences in the past where I've provided clear still images to the Gardai and haven't gotten very far. So I would question the merit of recording everything on a bike. And certainly the merit of the cammed crusaders who put their daily transgressions on YouTube.

mrcheez

Alek wrote: »

That's not stating the fact. Its putting a part of the blame on the cyclist.

Isn't that what this forum does best?

Orion

billie1b wrote: »

The van didn't touch the cyclist, the cyclist hit the kerb due to the driver moving in and that dismounted him, I would have hit the brakes personally or held back at the junction, still doesn't excuse the drivers actions though

Yes he did look at it again. He hit the front wheel of the bike with the back wheel of the van. He also deliberately swerved in order to push another road user off the road.

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

All the other 'bigger' 4 wheeled vehicles didn't have a problem safely overtaking the cyclist.

They went into the oncoming traffic lane which is not allowed, the cyclist should have taken the lane that way people could not dangerously overtake him and this would not have happened

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

They went into the oncoming traffic lane which is not allowed

That's funny, because it looks like they crossed a broken white line, which is allowed

had the white line been solid, then it would not be allowed.

Are you aware of the rules of the road?

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

That's funny, because it looks like they crossed a broken white line, which is allowed

had the white line been solid, then it would not be allowed.

Are you aware of the rules of the road?

Not english ones fully but on narrow london streets it's not allowed

billie1b

Orion wrote: »

Yes he did look at it again. He hit the front wheel of the bike with the back wheel of the van. He also deliberately swerved in order to push another road user off the road.

No he didn't, the front wheel did come very close but the cyclist had already hit the kerb at that stage and lost control pulling his handlebar to the right, the van missed him by centimetres and the cyclists hit the kerb again, slow it down frame by frame and you'll see it, again i'm not condoning the actions of the driver, complete twat, he did cause the cyclist to dismount but he didn't run him over.

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

Not english ones fully but on narrow london streets it's not allowed

Ah, so you are not aware of the rules then.

U.K. & Irish road laws are virtually identical when it comes to road markings.

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

Ah, so you are not aware of the rules then.

u.K. & Irish road laws are virtually identical when it comes to road markings.

Looked at the vid again overtaking was on a zigzag not a broken line, he should have taken the lane

googled eyes

While obviously the van driver is a nutcase and deserves to be charged for assault etc. the videos on this persons YouTube page show a cyclist who is confrontational and aggressive in their use of the road.

In one video where a car gets too close he follows them to a red light to have a go.

Unfortunately these days if you carry yourself like that you run the chance of meeting a scumbag who's more than willing to deck you.

Greenmachine

"Calling the driver a muppet" Would constitute road rage I'd say.
However what the van driver did was unbelievable.

I am curious if the cyclist has come across that van driver before. He spent a lot of time looking directly into the van, almost in anticipation of the van driver doing something wrong. Cyclist for all his concern with the van driver on the phone does not seem to be reading the road all that well himself. Look like his view is barely 15ft in front of him. Hope he makes a speedy recovery.

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

Looked at the vid again overtaking was on a zigzag not a broken line, he should have taken the lane

You didn't look hard enough then, the 'zig zag' ends, the lines become a broken white line, and the bin truck overtakes him. The car (after the bin truck) begins the overtaking manoeuvre before the 'zig zag' starts again

Are you by any chance the white van driver? Do you do deckings?