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

Lumen

macyard wrote: »

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

Ah, that'll be the London Streets amendment to the nineteen makey uppey Road Traffic Act.

Actually in the UK it is even permitted to cross double solid white lines to overtake a slow cyclist.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132

www.gov.uk Highway Code wrote:

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

MayoAreMagic

Orion wrote: »

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.

Where did I say any of that? You seem to have assumed that because it is road rage that I am suggesting it should now be left at that. That isn't the case for other road rage cases so I don't see why it should be here...

Also, he doesn't deserve a lifetime ban from driving for this, let's keep it real here.

Fathead

He states on his you tube channel that he is not the owner of the video, i believe the original poster of the video removed it.

googled eyes wrote: »

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.

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

You didn't look hard enough then, the 'zig zag' ends, the lines become a broken white line, and the bin truck overtakes him.

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

The white van overtakes on the zigzag, he should have taken the lane at the zigzag, with the load he should have taken the lane all the way anyway so others could overtake at the points where safe and not try to squeeze by unsafely

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

The white van overtakes on the zigzag, he should have taken the lane at the zigzag, with the load he should have taken the lane all the way anyway so others could overtake at the points where safe and not try to squeeze by unsafely

so let me get this straight, you're saying the cyclist should have taken the lane?

googled eyes

Fathead wrote: »

He states on his you tube channel that he is not the owner of the video, i believe the original poster of the video removed it.

Oh didn't see that. That's on the other video?

Either way.I wouldn't be shouting in a van window while cycling.

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

so let me get this straight, you're saying the cyclist should have taken the lane?

Yes the street is to narrow with that load to not take the lane.

Pinch Flat

at broken white lines you can overtake if the way ahead is clear - the bin lorry certainly ignored this before. When the gap between the White lines decreases, it means there's a hazard ahead.

https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/lines-and-lane-markings-on-the-road-127-to-132

My own view is that the White line distance remained constant. The cyclist when realising the situation should have slowed to allow the van overtake - if a driver is this ignorant it's best to let them get ahead of you and try anticipate their next move, like a sudden turn left. Pulling up beside and berating them is not the way and will, as this video demonstrates, lead to a confrontation.

When you have a mix of ignorance and a propensity for violence, these situations develop. I'm not in any way condoning the behavior of the motorist and my own read of the situation is that he swerved left to teach the cyclist a lesson.

Edit

Andybobandy wrote: »

so let me get this straight, you're saying the cyclist should have taken the lane?

I think most regular cyclists would concur that defensive cycling is the better scenario to avoid risky overtaking

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

The white van overtakes on the zigzag

So, what your saying is the white van broke the rules in this case.

Kind of what the thread has been saying all along, but you are disputing.

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

Yes the street is to narrow with that load to not take the lane.

Where is this lane?

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

So, what your saying is the white van broke the rules in this case.

Kind of what the thread has been saying all along, but you are disputing.

But he also did by not taking the lane and starting the road rage by screaming into the driver of the van.

The cyclist cause the problems, if he did not feel comfortable taking the lane he should have organized a better route

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

Where is this lane?

Taking the lane is cycling in the middle of road lane you do it when it's unsafe to travel by the gutter as was in this case

AndyBoBandy

Andybobandy wrote: »

Where is this lane?

What lane?

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

Taking the lane is cycling in the middle of road lane you do it when it's unsafe to travel by the gutter as was in this case

The cyclist was in the lane then, and it would therefore be up to other road users to safely overtake if/when possible

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

The cyclist was in the lane then, and it would therefore be up to other road users to safely overtake if/when possible

You need to go to the middle, staying to the left means you want cars to try to overtake which is unsafe on that road, you need to takeover the lane cycle in the middle so cars treat you like another car.

Pinch Flat

Andybobandy wrote: »

The cyclist was in the lane then, and it would therefore be up to other road users to safely overtake if/when possible

Works in utopia. But in reality the cyclist should cycle defensively to prevent these scenarios arising - I do it all the time and never have any grief, holding someone up or slowing them down for a few seconds, which is generally rarely the case as City traffic moves relatively slow anyway, is in my book is always preferable to a risky overtaking manouver being carried out that could seriously injure or kill me should it go wrong.

sarkozy

The driver should never have done what he did, but in my view, the cyclist also made an error of judgement in turning the corner when he did. The driver was indicating left, and if that was me, I would have fallen in behind the van. That said, drivers have a higher obligation to ensure the safety of more vulnerable road users and is therefore more responsible for what happened.

Orion

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Where did I say any of that? You seem to have assumed that because it is road rage that I am suggesting it should now be left at that. That isn't the case for other road rage cases so I don't see why it should be here...

Also, he doesn't deserve a lifetime ban from driving for this, let's keep it real here.

Misunderstood you then. But labelling it as merely road rage belittles it.

As for a ban - I do think he does deserve it. On the phone while driving (minor in comparison), driving without due care (turning without indicating), dangerous overtaking, vehicular assault, reckless endangerment, physical assault. Add it all up and it totals get off the road you moron.

Gmol

Pity there will be no way they will be able to identify the driver

CramCycle

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,.

The load moves sidewards when the bike is down, it was nowhere near that wide, it just slid on the pannier rack when he was knocked down(hence why the bike is flat against the ground). Needless to say, if it was as wide as you think, it still should not have been an issue.

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

His bike and the load fitted on the road fine, this statement to me makes no sense, how do you know he didn't live 20 meters further up the road not that it makes a difference to my point.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But it isn't the job of other road users to correct this, it only escalated the situation.

Its not, it was a reaction to the situation (van pulling alongside with a vehicle turning in front, poor driving and observational skills at best by the driver).

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.

When the lorry was turning in front of him, the van came up beside the cyclist, essentially pinching him in (before he even turned in on him), the cyclist looks around and sees the driver is on the phone and paying no attention. Personally I would have held off but what he shouted at the driver was reasonable considering the idiotic maneuver beside him.

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.

No way to react, and no way to know if he was a lunatic.

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.

Not really if they were two cars, and the situation was broadly similar, no one would claim the driver (cyclist) was suffering road rage, annoyance at best, and no one would expect the van driver to cut in on top of him either as a response.

macyard wrote: »

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

Where did you get this from? If there is no oncoming traffic there is no issue.

macyard wrote: »

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

Yes it is, same as a wide road, if you have a clear line of sight, space and no oncoming traffic, of course you may overtake providing road signage does not say not too.

macyard wrote: »

But he also did by not taking the lane and starting the road rage by screaming into the driver of the van.

Screaming?

The cyclist cause the problems, if he did not feel comfortable taking the lane he should have organized a better route

Again, what? What if that is the only route? What if he works at one end of the road and lives at the other. There was plenty of time/space to overtake safely.

diomed

My impression is -
(1) the van driver cut in so he could stop/knock down the cyclist
(2) the van driver assaulted the cyclist
(3) the van was white

Point (3) will sway any jury.

barneystinson

Orion wrote: »

the prick should be banned from driving for life at the very least.

Good luck enforcing a driving ban in the afterlife...

detones

Crocked wrote: »

Fair play to the second cyclists who came to his assistance

Yeah other cyclist looks like he knew how to handle himself, he scared off this coward and possible saved him from worse harm.

CramCycle

detones wrote: »

Yeah other cyclist looks like he knew how to handle himself, he scared off this coward and possible saved him from worse harm.

I thought it was the same cyclist just his helmet Cam got knocked off?

MayoAreMagic

CramCycle wrote: »

When the lorry was turning in front of him, the van came up beside the cyclist, essentially pinching him in (before he even turned in on him), the cyclist looks around and sees the driver is on the phone and paying no attention. Personally I would have held off but what he shouted at the driver was reasonable considering the idiotic maneuver beside him.

For me, there was a level of aggression in the cyclist getting past the driver again and he clearly makes an effort to accelerate toward the junction to overtake him at that point, then turns to look directly at the driver after doing so - approaching the junction is actually the point where the cyclist is travelling the fastest in the entire video. Only after doing all this does he discover he is on the phone. Maybe he was annoyed at the driver overtaking him and then slowing down at the junction. But he clearly makes a pre-empted effort to get past him again and goes too close to the lorry in the act. What if that lorry had to stop? He'd be straight into the back of it. You can see he knows that he has annoyed the driver with his actions as he looks back 3 or 4 times before the van even reacts. Now obviously, it was crazy from then on on the part of the driver, but the cyclist was no angel either.

CramCycle wrote: »

Not really if they were two cars, and the situation was broadly similar, no one would claim the driver (cyclist) was suffering road rage, annoyance at best, and no one would expect the van driver to cut in on top of him either as a response.

I disagree. A car overtakes you, you speed up to overtake the guy again and do it on a junction and go too close to another vehicle to do it. Then you turn and stare into the drivers face while alongside him. Id say that is a bit stronger than simply being annoyed.

detones

CramCycle wrote: »

I thought it was the same cyclist just his helmet Cam got knocked off?

Think your right. How do you delete your own posts again ;-)

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

For me, there was a level of aggression in the cyclist getting past the driver again and he clearly makes an effort to accelerate toward the junction to overtake him at that point, then turns to look directly at the driver after doing so - approaching the junction is actually the point where the cyclist is travelling the fastest in the entire video. Only after doing all this does he discover he is on the phone. Maybe he was annoyed at the driver overtaking him and then slowing down at the junction. But he clearly makes a pre-empted effort to get past him again and goes too close to the lorry in the act. What if that lorry had to stop? He'd be straight into the back of it. You can see he knows that he has annoyed the driver with his actions as he looks back 3 or 4 times before the van even reacts. Now obviously, it was crazy from then on on the part of the driver, but the cyclist was no angel either.

I disagree. A car overtakes you, you speed up to overtake the guy again and do it on a junction and go too close to another vehicle to do it. Then you turn and stare into the drivers face while alongside him. Id say that is a bit stronger than simply being annoyed.

No matter what the cyclist has done, there is no reason to turn your vehicle into him/her.

SteelyDanJalapeno

What part does he Run over him?

couerdelion

TiltedBrain wrote: »

What part does he Run over him?

I think its probably a turn of phrase rather than accurate description of what happened.

My sister got "run over" when she was younger - but in actuality she got flipped onto the bumper and over the top of the car.

Eric Cartman

couerdelion wrote: »

I think its probably a turn of phrase rather than accurate description of what happened.

My sister got "run over" when she was younger - but in actuality she got flipped onto the bumper and over the top of the car.

yeah but in this a human body doesn't come in contact with the vehicle, the van crushed his wheel and that was it.

this video just shows up 2 real problems

1) A cyclist who shouldn't have got himself in that position on such a narrow road, who then decides to have a go and should at a lad through the window of his van

2) A van driver with a serious case of road rage who somewhat over-reacted to a rude cyclist.

Alek

A cyclist who shouldn't have got himself in that position on such a narrow road,

Wait, what?

Can you elaborate?

wendell borton

They're both idiots. The cyclist was looking for trouble passing on the inside before a junction.

MayoAreMagic

Josephine Hollow Recruiter wrote: »

No matter what the cyclist has done, there is no reason to turn your vehicle into him/her.

I never said there was. But the fact that the driver carried out the most dangerous act, doesn't mean you forget the course of events that led to it. The cyclist is being totally exonerated by many here, but he definitely drew a reaction onto himself. That reaction happened to be extreme. But if you poke every dog that growls at you with a stick, it is only a matter of time before one of them bites the hand off you.

On the topic of the video itself, the original poster deleted it, and some other guy who has a load of them put it up again, is that correct? Poor form if it is. He deleted it for a reason.

RainyDay

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The cyclist shouldnt have shouted in the window to get off the phone

Why not? If someone puts your life at risk, are you sure that you'd never shout at them?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But it isn't the job of other road users to correct this, it only escalated the situation.

If someone is scarily rude and inconsiderate to you, maybe by pushing in front of you at an ATM queue, are you just going to sit back and say nothing?

Ole Rodrigo wrote: »

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.

Way to go on the jumping to conclusions, Mr Judgy Judgemental from Judgetown.

googled eyes wrote: »

Either way.I wouldn't be shouting in a van window while cycling.

You seem to have missed the point. He's not telling you to go shouting in van windows while cycling. I'm not sure why you feel the need to judge him?

macyard wrote: »

But he also did by not taking the lane and starting the road rage by screaming into the driver of the van.

Screaming? Really?

macyard wrote: »

The cyclist cause the problems, if he did not feel comfortable taking the lane he should have organized a better route

Perhaps you can advise cyclists in general on how to 'organise a better route' where drivers won't overtake you while on the phone?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

For me, there was a level of aggression in the cyclist getting past the driver again and he clearly makes an effort to accelerate toward the junction to overtake him at that point, then turns to look directly at the driver after doing so - approaching the junction is actually the point where the cyclist is travelling the fastest in the entire video. Only after doing all this does he discover he is on the phone. Maybe he was annoyed at the driver overtaking him and then slowing down at the junction. But he clearly makes a pre-empted effort to get past him again and goes too close to the lorry in the act. What if that lorry had to stop? He'd be straight into the back of it. You can see he knows that he has annoyed the driver with his actions as he looks back 3 or 4 times before the van even reacts. Now obviously, it was crazy from then on on the part of the driver, but the cyclist was no angel either.



I disagree. A car overtakes you, you speed up to overtake the guy again and do it on a junction and go too close to another vehicle to do it. Then you turn and stare into the drivers face while alongside him. Id say that is a bit stronger than simply being annoyed.

Are you telepathic? How you know what point the cyclist discovered that the driver was on the phone? Is it possible that the driver was on the phone when he first over take the cyclist?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

On the topic of the video itself, the original poster deleted it, and some other guy who has a load of them put it up again, is that correct? Poor form if it is. He deleted it for a reason.

Again, are you telepathic? Do you know the reason why he deleted it? Do you know what contact the YouTube channel owner has had with the original cyclist?

MayoAreMagic

RainyDay wrote: »

Why not? If someone puts your life at risk, are you sure that you'd never shout at them?

If someone is scarily rude and inconsiderate to you, maybe by pushing in front of you at an ATM queue, are you just going to sit back and say nothing?

Like say overtake them at speed on the inside at a junction and then slows down mid-manoeuvre to look at them in the face? Dangerous like that you mean? Maybe you are right...

RainyDay wrote: »

Are you telepathic? How you know what point the cyclist discovered that the driver was on the phone? Is it possible that the driver was on the phone when he first over take the cyclist?

Telepathic no, observant yes. The camera was attached to his head. The only time he gets a look at the driver is halfway over the junction because that is the only time you can see him in the camera. If he turned to see him on the initial overtake the camera would have turned too.

RainyDay wrote: »

Again, are you telepathic? Do you know the reason why he deleted it? Do you know what contact the YouTube channel owner has had with the original cyclist?

I never said I knew the reason, only that there was one. Obviously there was one as it happened... Also, how do you know there was contact between the two owners of the channels? Are you telepathic? etc etc

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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.

If someone cut me off like that muppet isn't the word that'd be on the tip of my tongue…

When you see something dangerous happening to you, you are more than entitled to call the perpetrator out, reasonably. The cyclist is no angel, he cycled too close to the side of the road for me but I do not think he was deliberately aggressive - he called the driver out on his behaviour which is fair enough in my view.

The aggression from the driver is wildly disproportionate, and someone who cannot control themselves like that shouldn't be behind the wheel for some time anyway. That was an extreme and completely, utterly unjustifiable response. HE ran the cyclist off the road, deliberately and then hit him. For being called out as being on the phone and passing very close and dangerously.

The driver should have stayed behind the cyclist until it was safe to pass. I really struggle to see how any other course of action is justified?

RainyDay

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Like say overtake them at speed on the inside at a junction and then slows down mid-manoeuvre to look at them in the face? Dangerous like that you mean? Maybe you are right...

You might specifically explain what danger the cyclist caused to the van-driver? Do you hear of many incidents of van-drivers being killed or injured as a result of their vans being mangled by cyclists filtering through on the inside?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Telepathic no, observant yes. The camera was attached to his head. The only time he gets a look at the driver is halfway over the junction because that is the only time you can see him in the camera. If he turned to see him on the initial overtake the camera would have turned too.

Unless the cyclist is wearing blinkers, it is very likely that he had a good view of what the driver was up to when passing him, without any need to move his head. But hey, keep on jumping to those conclusions that suit your narrow arguement.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I never said I knew the reason, only that there was one.

Indeed, and you did indicate that the YouTube channel owner was wrong to repost the video, despite you not knowing anything about the reasons why. Do you get tired from all that jumping to conclusions?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Also, how do you know there was contact between the two owners of the channels? Are you telepathic? etc etc

You miss the point - presumably deliberately so. I haven't come to any conclusions about the posting of the video on the YouTube channel, precisely because I don't know if there was any contact. You might think about withholding judgement until you know the facts, or better still, withholding judgement completely when it comes to things you know nothing about.

Update: Driver has handed himself into police
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/van-driver-hands-police-cyclist-attack-video-goes-viral-video-152812#Jy6LxjmqCZMxBkp6.99

bullvine

Is that Jason Statham? Is it from Transporter 4?

ebbsy

Cyclist trying to be the hard man, shouting at the driver ? Is he trying to be the police ?

If you can't back up your threats, keep your gob shut.

MayoAreMagic

gadetra wrote: »

The aggression from the driver is wildly disproportionate, and someone who cannot control themselves like that shouldn't be behind the wheel for some time anyway. That was an extreme and completely, utterly unjustifiable response. HE ran the cyclist off the road, deliberately and then hit him. For being called out as being on the phone and passing very close and dangerously.

Id say that neither could control themselves. I mean, he only overtook him at the end of the day, fair enough get annoyed, but don't go trying to overtake him back in a crazy manner and looking into his face while you do it.

gadetra wrote: »

The driver should have stayed behind the cyclist until it was safe to pass. I really struggle to see how any other course of action is justified?

Ok, that is fair enough. But he didn't, he followed the truck that had also overtaken the guy and then he needed to turn off. A mistake I agree, but not a hugely uncommon one either to be fair. Now from this point what is the correct course of action? Hunt him down on your bike, overtake him up the inside at a junction and look into his face while you do it, putting not only the two of you at risk but everyone else at the junction also? Of course not, there is no defending that behaviour either.

Jawgap

bullvine wrote: »

Is that Jason Statham? Is it from Transporter 4?

Nah - it's the Sweeney, son - and they haven't had any dinner......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUoEog2M1Q

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Id say that neither could control themselves. I mean, he only overtook him at the end of the day, fair enough get annoyed, but don't go trying to overtake him back in a crazy manner and looking into his face while you do it.

The cyclist did not endanger anyone else's life. He did not run anyone off the road. It's not fair equivalence. He did not only overtake him, he ran him off the road, jumped out of his van and punched him!

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ok, that is fair enough. But he didn't, he followed the truck that had also overtaken the guy and then he needed to turn off. A mistake I agree, but not a hugely uncommon one either to be fair. Now from this point what is the correct course of action? Hunt him down on your bike, overtake him up the inside at a junction and look into his face while you do it, putting not only the two of you at risk but everyone else at the junction also? Of course not, there is no defending that behaviour either.

The cyclist maintained a pretty consistent speed. When I get passed close or cut off or other dangerous situation I get flooded with adrenaline and fly down the road before the shaking sets in! The cyclist didn't 'hunt him down'!
The cyclist looks at him in the van, as I would and indeed if driving you would look at who's just passed you too close. This does not mean he is not aware of what's in front or around him, you are seeing the camera's point of view and they does not have peripheral vision, as a human eye does. I can turn my head to the side and still see straight ahead.

Van passes cyclist too close, cyclist calls driver out on his illegal and dangerous behaviour, van driver DELIBERATELY runs cyclist off the road, punches cyclist…again the cyclist should have been further to the middle of the road to be pedantic but that in no way justifies the actions of the van driver. Not in any way, shape or form. Fault is with van driver in this case, almost entirely. If your reaction to cyclists on the road is getting out of your vehicle and punching them you have a big, big problem and should no be let behind the wheel until you see sense!

arse..biscuits

Looks to me like the cyclist started pushing his face into the drivers face and then he started the pushing/punching too.

Kav0777

arse..biscuits wrote: »

Looks to me like the cyclist started pushing his face into the drivers face and then he started the pushing/punching too.

Yes, he viciously assaulted the drivers fist with his cheek...

RainyDay

ebbsy wrote: »

Cyclist trying to be the hard man, shouting at the driver ? Is he trying to be the police ?

If you can't back up your threats, keep your gob shut.

Are we back in the schoolyard? Are we all expected to kowtow to bullies?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Id say that neither could control themselves. I mean, he only overtook him at the end of the day, fair enough get annoyed, but don't go trying to overtake him back in a crazy manner and looking into his face while you do it.

Ok, that is fair enough. But he didn't, he followed the truck that had also overtaken the guy and then he needed to turn off. A mistake I agree, but not a hugely uncommon one either to be fair. Now from this point what is the correct course of action? Hunt him down on your bike, overtake him up the inside at a junction and look into his face while you do it, putting not only the two of you at risk but everyone else at the junction also? Of course not, there is no defending that behaviour either.

You really need to get over your obsession with 'looking him in the face'. Was he looking the driver in the face, or was he watching the ton of metal that could potentially have killed him?

Either way, it doesn't really matter what direction he was looking, or what look was on his face, there is no justification for the driver assaulting him first with the van and then with his fists. Really, this constant stream of excuses for what is pure thuggery and assault is worrying. If somebody had done this to a member of your family, would you still be blaming the victim?

MayoAreMagic

RainyDay wrote: »

You might specifically explain what danger the cyclist caused to the van-driver? Do you hear of many incidents of van-drivers being killed or injured as a result of their vans being mangled by cyclists filtering through on the inside?

1. Half a second later and he turns left. The cyclist smashes into him and is killed. Not very nice to have hanging over your head.

2. The driver starts to turn, the cyclists gets by just in time but the whizzing bike coming from behind makes the driver swerve the other way into oncoming traffic.

RainyDay wrote: »

Unless the cyclist is wearing blinkers, it is very likely that he had a good view of what the driver was up to when passing him, without any need to move his head. But hey, keep on jumping to those conclusions that suit your narrow arguement.

Look that is simply not true. He cant see the driver at the time, that is clear. He is overtaken at a good speed and there is a guy in a big jacket in the passenger seat, blocking his view. His head doesn't go to the right even an inch throughout the move. So please explain in detail how he can see him...

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, and you did indicate that the YouTube channel owner was wrong to repost the video, despite you not knowing anything about the reasons why. Do you get tired from all that jumping to conclusions?

I actually asked if it was the case, and stated that IF it was it was poor form. Who did you way was jumping to conclusions again?

RainyDay wrote: »

You miss the point - presumably deliberately so. I haven't come to any conclusions about the posting of the video on the YouTube channel, precisely because I don't know if there was any contact. You might think about withholding judgement until you know the facts, or better still, withholding judgement completely when it comes to things you know nothing about.

Another conclusion about it being deliberate...

I didn't jump to this conclusion at all, if you read the posts before falling over yourself to respond you would know that.

arse..biscuits

Kav0777 wrote: »

Yes, he viciously assaulted the drivers fist with his cheek...

No, before that, looks to me like the cyclist started the fight.

Kav0777

arse..biscuits wrote: »

No, before that, looks to me like the cyclist started the fight.

...ah, the bit were he deliberately rammed his bike into the side of the van, gotcha...

Well, it's in the hands of the police now.

arse..biscuits

Kav0777 wrote: »

...ah, the bit were he deliberately rammed his bike into the side of the van, gotcha...

Well, it's in the hands of the police now.

You like to twist things I see. If the solution to every traffic incident is violence, I'm never leaving the house again. The cyclist is the one who wanted violence.

Jawgap

arse..biscuits wrote: »

You like to twist things I see. If the solution to every traffic incident is violence, I'm never leaving the house again. The cyclist is the one who wanted violence.

What's the basis for that statement? If he wanted to pick a fight why not pick one with Doris in her Focus instead of the two Ray Winstone-like individuals who lay paving for a living!