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

MayoAreMagic

gadetra wrote: »

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!

I agree. Similarly, if your reaction to being overtaken and have a guy brake in front of you because of a turn off is to speed up, overtake him on the inside, slow down to turn and stare him out of it, all in the middle of a junction with other vehicles around you, then shout in the window at him and call him a mug, then you shouldn't be cycling on the roads either. Get both these lads off the road I say. I couldn't see how anyone would reasonably disagree.

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I agree. Similarly, if your reaction to being overtaken and have a guy brake in front of you because of a turn off is to speed up, overtake him on the inside, slow down to turn and stare him out of it, all in the middle of a junction with other vehicles around you, then shout in the window at him and call him a mug, then you shouldn't be cycling on the roads either. Get both these lads off the road I say. I couldn't see how anyone would reasonably disagree.

To be fair, he didn't 'stare him out of it'. He looked in at him. 99.9% of people will look at someone who has moved in/been aggressive/cut them off. He didn't sped up that much, he was just cycling along minding his own business. When people cut me up, and I can, I will tell them what they did wring if they're stopped up at the lights or happen to be still near me. I see nothing wrong with that. Cutting cyclists off is reprehensible behaviour, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. And being on the phone?

I'll put it to you another way. A driver is on the phone, sees a cyclist, passes way too close, gets out of his van and punches him. It's no where near in the same category as cycling down the road, has a close pass, ends up beside driver at junction, calls him out, gets run off the road and punched. I know who I'd rather be on the road beside. They're not even in the same league! Not even next nor near fair equivalence!

MayoAreMagic

RainyDay wrote: »

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?

It is pretty clear from the video, he was looking in the guys face, for a few seconds. The fact that he had turned completely away from the lorry that was still turning off in the other direction is another red flag. Maybe he should have paid some attention that that 2 tonne of metal too?

RainyDay wrote: »

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?

Nobody has tried to justify or excuse his behaviour. Everyone agrees he was wrong. For some reason the same cant be said for the behaviour of the cyclist, which is ridiculous when you watch the video. Maybe it is the shock of the assault or whatever, but you have to consider what brought that about also.

Also, if it were a family member of mine Id first make sure he was ok. But Id definitely be talking to him about his own behaviour on the road. Id ask him what if a child was crossing when he decided to inexplicably speed up to overtake a car on a crossroads, maybe his own little sister. Im pretty sure he would agree that he was out of line too, as I would guess that the guy in the video removed it from youtube upon reflection of his own behaviour in it.

RainyDay

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.

Would you like to expand on how you concluded that the cyclist 'wanted violence'? If someone threatens your personal safety, say by waving a knife or a gun around you, do you 'want violence' by calling them out?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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.

So just let me understand your theoretical situation fully - a cyclist is dead as a result of a driver being on the phone and not paying attention to his driving, and your major concern is about what is left hanging over the driver's head, and not the cyclist, or the cyclist's family?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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.

Oh, come on - get real, you're just clutching at straws now. Just for reference, cyclists don't make drivers 'swerve into oncoming traffic'. If the driver has a problem, all they have to do is stop their car or van. As you can from this case, it is more likely that the driver will swerve into the cyclist than anything else.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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...

Sure, this might help you to understand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision
It's not hard to see a glint of a bright smartphone screen.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

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?

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.

But you did feel a need to criticise first, and get the facts later - interesting approach, isn't it?

But I noted you avoided the important question about how you would feel if a member of your family was knocked down by a driver on the phone, then attacked? Would you blame your family member for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It is pretty clear from the video, he was looking in the guys face, for a few seconds. The fact that he had turned completely away from the lorry that was still turning off in the other direction is another red flag. Maybe he should have paid some attention that that 2 tonne of metal too?

You can still see straight ahead with your head turned! Camera's don't, but human eyes DO have peripheral vision. Also the video viewpoint is that of the camera, which as stated has one viewpoint. A human eye has much much better range than a lens. Also other senses available too, like hearing etc. I can most definitely turn my head and still see what's in front of me.

NSAman

Josephine Hollow Recruiter wrote: »

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

Generalise much? (and I am both a cyclist and a motorist)

MayoAreMagic

gadetra wrote: »

I'll put it to you another way. A driver is on the phone, sees a cyclist, passes way too close, gets out of his van and punches him. It's no where near in the same category as cycling down the road, has a close pass, ends up beside driver at junction, calls him out, gets run off the road and punched. I know who I'd rather be on the road beside. They're not even in the same league! Not even next nor near fair equivalence!

That isn't what happened though. He didn't pass way too close. The cyclist didn't just end up beside him. He intentionally accelerated to pass him out in what seemed to be a fit of temper because he slowed down in front of him, done it at a really dangerous place, and slowed down to make a point about it while taking his eyes of a lorry turning the other way. Take the knocking the guy off the bike and punch out of it, and that is a way over the top reaction that put innocent bystanders at risk.

Im not saying they are equivalence either, but merely two examples with neither excusing the other.

eeeee

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That isn't what happened though. He didn't pass way too close. The cyclist didn't just end up beside him. He intentionally accelerated to pass him out in what seemed to be a fit of temper because he slowed down in front of him, done it at a really dangerous place, and slowed down to make a point about it while taking his eyes of a lorry turning the other way. Take the knocking the guy off the bike and punch out of it, and that is a way over the top reaction that put innocent bystanders at risk.

Im not saying they are equivalence either, but merely two examples with neither excusing the other.

Err the van did pass too close, that's the whole problem. He sped up yes, shock, adrenaline whatever, who knows? But he did not intentionally speed up to him to pass him out and slow down in front of him again, deliberately putting himself in danger. I don't know where you're getting that from. And as eyes are not camera lenses, you can briefly look at something and still be aware of what's in front of you.

Every time I have had a close shave on the bike, being passed too close etc. I get a rush of adrenaline. It's one of the bodies natural responses to shock and danger. It speeds me up as long as it lasts. It is shortly replaced by a shaky shock feeling, for me anyway, which slows me down. It looks like something similar in the video.

MayoAreMagic

RainyDay wrote: »

So just let me understand your theoretical situation fully - a cyclist is dead as a result of a driver being on the phone and not paying attention to his driving, and your major concern is about what is left hanging over the driver's head, and not the cyclist, or the cyclist's family?

Both of them. If you turn off and a cyclist comes flying from behind you and smashes into your car, you are going to feel bad about it, probably for the rest of your life.

RainyDay wrote: »

Oh, come on - get real, you're just clutching at straws now. Just for reference, cyclists don't make drivers 'swerve into oncoming traffic'. If the driver has a problem, all they have to do is stop their car or van. As you can from this case, it is more likely that the driver will swerve into the cyclist than anything else.

In a word, nonsense. Any vehicle coming up behind you on one side at speed, will automatically made you swing the other way. How could it make you turn into the vehicle? That makes no sense.

RainyDay wrote: »

Sure, this might help you to understand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision
It's not hard to see a glint of a bright smartphone screen.

Sorry but if he wanted to see that phone it isn't peripheral vision he needs it's xray vision. Now please stop insulting people's intelligence by trying to pretend the driver was visible to the cyclist. It is completely clear he couldn't see him.

Im tired of this topic. It is a waste of time trying to debate with someone who has decided the outcome already, and is trying to fit the facts around it.

RainyDay

I have to keep going back and rewatching the video, because it seems like from your descriptions that you've been watching a different video.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It is pretty clear from the video, he was looking in the guys face, for a few seconds.

How exactly is that 'pretty clear'? The centre of vision for the camera is actually on the bonnet of the van, not the windscreen. And how exactly does a cyclist look into the face of a driver that is a meter or two behind him? You're seeing what you want to see, to justify a bit of victim blaming.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The fact that he had turned completely away from the lorry that was still turning off in the other direction is another red flag. Maybe he should have paid some attention that that 2 tonne of metal too?

Do you often find that lorries, having made a left turn, suddenly put their lorry into reverse, and reverse at speed across the road towards traffic that have passed the rear of the lorry? Because that very unlikely scenario would be the only reason for paying attention to the lorry. It had turned off and he had passed it - why would he be watching it, and not the ton of metal on his heels, coming his direction? You're getting desperate now.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Nobody has tried to justify or excuse his behaviour. Everyone agrees he was wrong. For some reason the same cant be said for the behaviour of the cyclist, which is ridiculous when you watch the video. Maybe it is the shock of the assault or whatever, but you have to consider what brought that about also.

Also, if it were a family member of mine Id first make sure he was ok. But Id definitely be talking to him about his own behaviour on the road. Id ask him what if a child was crossing when he decided to inexplicably speed up to overtake a car on a crossroads, maybe his own little sister. Im pretty sure he would agree that he was out of line too, as I would guess that the guy in the video removed it from youtube upon reflection of his own behaviour in it.

I wouldn't have gone up the inside of the van, mainly because I'd have half-expected it to turn left without any indication, as often happens. But apart from that, there is nothing 'out of line' in his behaviour. He didn't 'speed up' - the van slowed, and nearly stopped waiting for the lorry to turn away. He didn't 'stare at the driver' - he just kept a close watch on the vehicle that was threatening his safety.

You seem to have a problem with the cyclist calling out the driver's dangerous behaviour, as if cyclists are some kind of 2nd class citizens that aren't allowed speak to drivers who threaten their life?

You really need to stop the victim blaming, and focus the blame on the violent thug who attacked a cyclist with his van and then his fists.

LuckyLloyd

The cyclist raised his hands first when the driver came round to check on him. That's not up for debate.

CramCycle

The camera is on top of the cyclists head, about 3.5 inches minimum above his head most likely five. The reason, I assume based on my own experience, that he looks back at the driver, is to give a shrug, as in "why would you over take me and pinch me against the left turning lorry instead of waiting until you are past the junction". I am basing this on the idea that the lorry indicated in time, but a guess at best. He then sees the phone and with the adrenaline pumping, shouts to get off it.

Its similar to the experience many have of people overtaking coming upto a red light, its stupid and pointless behaviour.

Was the cyclists decision wise, of course not, was he pumped on adrenaline due to the stupidity of the vans overtake, I would put money on it. Did his behaviour endanger anyone but himself, no. It was a straight ahead road with a left turn, the only one going to be injured by the cyclists rush of adrenaline, caused by the van drivers pointless maneuver, is the cyclist.

Does the cyclists one rash move negate any of the drivers behaviour, no. To even insinuate such a thing is ludicrous. The driver instigated the stupid overtake, the driver was on the phone, the driver knowingly pulled across someone beside them.

While I suspect he realised he had no choice, I am glad that he handed himself in to the Police

arse..biscuits

RainyDay wrote: »

Would you like to expand on how you concluded that the cyclist 'wanted violence'? If someone threatens your personal safety, say by waving a knife or a gun around you, do you 'want violence' by calling them out?

As soon as the guy got out of the van he's shouting abuse at him, he pushes his face into the driver and starts pushing him. He wanted a fight.

CramCycle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The cyclist raised his hands first when the driver came round to check on him. That's not up for debate.

He pointed at the vans wheel where he was knocked/hit the van, at 1.09. He also raised his hand while on the ground a few seconds before

macyard

CramCycle wrote: »

The camera is on top of the cyclists head, about 3.5 inches minimum above his head most likely five. The reason, I assume based on my own experience, that he looks back at the driver, is to give a shrug, as in "why would you over take me and pinch me against the left turning lorry instead of waiting until you are past the junction". I am basing this on the idea that the lorry indicated in time, but a guess at best. He then sees the phone and with the adrenaline pumping, shouts to get off it.

Its similar to the experience many have of people overtaking coming upto a red light, its stupid and pointless behaviour.

Was the cyclists decision wise, of course not, was he pumped on adrenaline due to the stupidity of the vans overtake, I would put money on it. Did his behaviour endanger anyone but himself, no. It was a straight ahead road with a left turn, the only one going to be injured by the cyclists rush of adrenaline, caused by the van drivers pointless maneuver, is the cyclist.

Does the cyclists one rash move negate any of the drivers behaviour, no. To even insinuate such a thing is ludicrous. The driver instigated the stupid overtake, the driver was on the phone, the driver knowingly pulled across someone beside them.

While I suspect he realised he had no choice, I am glad that he handed himself in to the Police

if the cyclist took over the lane coming to the junction like he is meant to none of this would have happened at all, the cyclist was the cause of it all, the van driver went extreme after it though

magicbastarder

macyard wrote: »

the cyclist was the cause of it all

the cyclist caused the punchup?

Honey Monster

neris wrote: »

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

What?
What?

What?

macyard

magicbastarder wrote: »

the cyclist caused the punchup?

Yes he did that to he was agressive and the went up the face of the van owner.

AndyBoBandy

macyard wrote: »

Yes he did that to he was agressive and the went up the face of the van owner.

I'll ask you again macyard, are you that van driver?

07Lapierre

The van driver who was filmed punching a cyclist to the ground has today handed himself into police, according to reports.

Yesterday, Essex Police urged the cyclist to come forward after the shocking video emerged on Twitter and confirmed to MailOnline that the driver voluntarily attended Chelmsford Police station this morning.

An Essex Police spokesman told the website: ‘A man has voluntarily attended at Chelmsford Police station this morning to give an account of the incident. It has now been established that this incident took place in the Hornchurch area and the matter has been passed to the Metropolitan Police to investigate’.

The rider shouted at the van driver to get off his mobile phone and was then knocked off his bike as the van drove closer to the kerb. The driver then exited the vehicle and a scuffle broke out, resulting in the cyclist being punched to the ground.


Read more at http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/van-driver-hands-police-cyclist-attack-video-goes-viral-video-152812#8JpOSd88LLMAo4YE.99

macyard

Andybobandy wrote: »

I'll ask you again macyard, are you that van driver?

Well since I am not a man no.

jive

Driver was just defending himself after the unlawful verbal volley of abuse hurled at him

Jawgap

jive wrote: »

Driver was just defending himself after the unlawful verbal volley of abuse hurled at him

Yes because verbals requires a physical response :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

poor man, his feelings had been hurt.

Greenmachine

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes because verbals requires a physical response :rolleyes:

Nobody has said that is the case in this situation.

Jawgap

Greenmachine wrote: »

Nobody has said that is the case in this situation.

The driver was totally out of order - violence is only justified in self-defence, and the cyclist, despite the stupidity of shouting into the van, was hardly a threat, as the driver came at him.

There was no reason for the driver to get out or for him to circle round the van to the cyclist. Even the driver got out to check the cyclist was ok, it's not like he had no way to retreat if the cyclist had presented a threat.

magicbastarder

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.

just reading back through the thread; found this. it's a peach.
i'm just curious as to what the cyclist verbally threatened the driver with.

ebbsy

If the cyclist had half a brain in his head - which he obviously does not - he would have got the van's details and passed them onto the fuzz.

Instead he tried to be the hard man and got his ass handed o him.

Jawgap

ebbsy wrote: »

If the cyclist had half a brain in his head - which he obviously does not - he would have got the van's details and passed them onto the fuzz.

Instead he tried to be the hard man and got his ass handed o him.

The 'fuzz' are aware and the driver has already presented himself.

magicbastarder

possibly because his boss may have been wondering why they'd been delisted from websites acting as directories for the trades.

Paco Rodriguez

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!

The van driver only cut him off after the cyclist shouted at him. I'm not defending the motorist but a cyclist should leave policing to the garda, or they run the risk of sparking these madmen.

magicbastarder

i don't think shouting at a motorist really comprises 'policing', unless the cyclist had tried to make a citizen's arrest.

at what point does something like flashing at a motorist who has forgotten to turn their lights on at night become 'policing'?

Zyzz

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't think shouting at a motorist really comprises 'policing', unless the cyclist had tried to make a citizen's arrest.

at what point does something like flashing at a motorist who has forgotten to turn their lights on at night become 'policing'?

I'd advise not doing this, I now face a hefty fine for public indecency.

RainyDay

Once again, I find myself wondering if other people are looking at the same video at all.

arse..biscuits wrote: »

As soon as the guy got out of the van he's shouting abuse at him, he pushes his face into the driver and starts pushing him. He wanted a fight.

You seem to have missed one mildly significant point - which came just before all that happened - remember the bit when the driver drove the cyclist off the road, knocking him off his bike? If you want to look for violence, that's when it started - when the big, brave driver used his ton of metal against another person. Strange how you missed that point?

And strange how you decided that the cyclist pushes his face into the driver and starts pushing him, because when I watch the video, I see the exact opposite.

macyard wrote: »

if the cyclist took over the lane coming to the junction like he is meant to none of this would have happened at all, the cyclist was the cause of it all, the van driver went extreme after it though

Taking the lane is certainly a good idea as a defensive measure, but I've no idea how you concluded that means the cyclist was the 'cause of it all'. It's a bit like saying that it's OK for me to smack you over the head with a hurley, as you're the cause of of it all by not wearing a hurley helmet all day.

macyard wrote: »

Yes he did that to he was agressive and the went up the face of the van owner.

Again, you missed the important point. The only 'aggression' (and I'm not sure that I'd call it aggression at all) occurred AFTER the cyclist had been driven off the road and off his bike. So if you want to look for violence and aggression, start there.

jive wrote: »

Driver was just defending himself after the unlawful verbal volley of abuse hurled at him

And here we go again? What particular law outlaws 'Get off the phone, you muppet'? And is it really a 'volley of abuse', or is it just a quick quip?

Jawgap wrote: »

The driver was totally out of order - violence is only justified in self-defence, and the cyclist, despite the stupidity of shouting into the van, was hardly a threat, as the driver came at him.

I'm not sure why you consider it 'stupid' to have shouted into the van. If somebody threatens your life and safety with a dangerous maneuver, then a shout or two is a reasonable response.

ebbsy wrote: »

If the cyclist had half a brain in his head - which he obviously does not - he would have got the van's details and passed them onto the fuzz.

Instead he tried to be the hard man and got his ass handed o him.

More of the schoolyard macho stuff, which seems to have little grip on reality.
1) Passing details to the fuzz has zero effect in situations like this. Cyclists have been killed in the UK by drivers, and got off scott free. So minor traffic issues like this (before it turned into assault) get ignored by the police.
2) Given that the driver has managed to ruin the name of his business, and has had to fess up to the fuzz today, who do you think really got their ass handed to them?

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

The van driver only cut him off after the cyclist shouted at him. I'm not defending the motorist but a cyclist should leave policing to the garda, or they run the risk of sparking these madmen.

Just to be clear, the van driver didn't 'cut him off' - he hit him with his one-ton of metal, driving him off the road and off his bike.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

That isn't what happened though. He didn't pass way too close. The cyclist didn't just end up beside him. He intentionally accelerated to pass him out in what seemed to be a fit of temper because he slowed down in front of him, done it at a really dangerous place, and slowed down to make a point about it while taking his eyes of a lorry turning the other way.

He didn't 'intentionally accelerate' - the van slowed, almost stopped, to allow the truck to turn - that's how the cyclist caught up and filtered past.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Both of them. If you turn off and a cyclist comes flying from behind you and smashes into your car, you are going to feel bad about it, probably for the rest of your life.

Why would you feel bad about something if you did nothing wrong?

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In a word, nonsense. Any vehicle coming up behind you on one side at speed, will automatically made you swing the other way. How could it make you turn into the vehicle? That makes no sense.

Do you have brakes on your car? If you see a dangerous situation, the first thing you do is stop, not drive into another lane or other traffic.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Sorry but if he wanted to see that phone it isn't peripheral vision he needs it's xray vision. Now please stop insulting people's intelligence by trying to pretend the driver was visible to the cyclist. It is completely clear he couldn't see him.

I see drivers passing me every day on their phones, whether in their hand or at their ears or held out, with the Facebook logo or the Gmail logo clearly visible. You should try getting out on a bike in the city one of these days and see what it's like.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im tired of this topic. It is a waste of time trying to debate with someone who has decided the outcome already, and is trying to fit the facts around it.

I can imagine that you're tired of getting your victim-blaming highlighted as victim-blaming. You make up stuff about 'acceleration' and 'staring into his eyes' and ignore the obvious thuggery of the driver. Classy...

Zyzz

You have way too much time on your hands my friend. ^

Greenmachine

Jawgap wrote: »

The driver was totally out of order - violence is only justified in self-defence, and the cyclist, despite the stupidity of shouting into the van, was hardly a threat, as the driver came at him.

There was no reason for the driver to get out or for him to circle round the van to the cyclist. Even the driver got out to check the cyclist was ok, it's not like he had no way to retreat if the cyclist had presented a threat.

Preaching to the choir. Are you reading the a different thread, than everyone else.

Jawgap

Greenmachine wrote: »

Preaching to the choir. Are you reading the a different thread, than everyone else.

No, just looking at the vid from the perspective of a mildly disinterested observer.

oceanclub

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.

You know, I'm really not surprised that someone would attempt to pin some of the blame on a cyclist who was _run down and then assaulted_.

P.

wexandproud

while the driver is an a..hole the whole situation would not have happened if the guy on the bike did not go up the inside of the van. he should have braked when the lorry braked and indicated left and the van would have been ahead of him

Darkglasses

wexandproud wrote: »

while the driver is an a..hole the whole situation would not have happened if the guy on the bike did not go up the inside of the van. he should have braked when the lorry braked and indicated left and the van would have been ahead of him

Wouldn't have happened if the driver could get over his own anger management problems either. Glad he's turned himself in, hope he sorts himself out.

ezra_pound

wexandproud wrote: »

while the driver is an a..hole the whole situation would not have happened if the guy on the bike did not go up the inside of the van. he should have braked when the lorry braked and indicated left and the van would have been ahead of him

But he went up the inside of the van AFTER the driver dangerously close passed him while using his mobile. How did the cyclists actions cause that?

beauf

He means before that at the junction. He went between the van and lorry. A pinch point. That's a pretty narrow lane in general. Wouldn't be my first choice of route.

ted1

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

The van driver only cut him off after the cyclist shouted at him. I'm not defending the motorist but a cyclist should leave policing to the garda, or they run the risk of sparking these madmen.

It looks like the van wanted to turn at the junction but the cyclist was inside of him, and he went straight instead. The van then chased him down on purpose

CatFromHue

My biggest worry about going up the inside of a van at a junction like that would that they just haven't indicated and are turning left

TheQuietFella

What an idiot for shouting at the driver! Who did he think he was?

Looking for trouble & he got what he deserved!

CramCycle

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Looking for trouble & he got what he deserved!

MOD VOICE: No one deserves a beating, despite my occasional over reaction, some may disagree, thankfully the cyclist was standing at the end, I think Friday is over, let's leave it there.