When cyclists attack

neil_g said:
i had a car driving along the pavement behind me while i was walking to the shops the other day, it was too impatient to wait for the skip lorry that was partially blocking the road to finish its manouver.
Click to expand...
Probably a cyclist who'd forgotten he wasn't on his bike. ;)
 
Certain cyclist's cause all other cyclists to get tarred with the same brush.
Certain car drivers cause all other drivers to get tarred with the same brush.
This situation came to a head that could have probably been avoided.
If the truck driver I would have just carried on as normal (maintain speed, check mirrors etc). If he passes you just let him go (unless he does start to impede your progress) if he remains on the right side, let him choose his own fate.
 
neil_g said:
As apposed to all the drivers that speed, use their mobiles, use poor lane discipline etc. On my 1-1.5hr commute I'm 90% more likely to see a motor vehicle doing something stupid.
Click to expand...

As opposed to... nothing and no one as what I said was...
woof woof said:
Amazing restraint from the driver but the biker IMO needs to be in prison.

I'm all for the law being applied equally but (again, IMO) cyclists get off with behaving very badly far too often.
Click to expand...

I don't think that any fair minded person could dissagree with either of my points.

Anyone who starts punching people in public does IMO belong in prison and I do believe thst cyclists get away with behaving badly too often perhaps partly because it's too dificult to identify and catch them but I also think that the law is both too lenient and often biased in favour of cyclists.

IMO anyone who behaves badly or stupidly on the roads needs dealing with. They shouldn't escape responsibiliy, blame or punishment because of what they happen to be driving or riding.
 
the problem is that the assault is not captured by the video and he would have needed to cause actual bodily harm for it to be an indictable offence for trial by jury
 
boliston said:
the problem is that the assault is not captured by the video and he would have needed to cause actual bodily harm for it to be an indictable offence for trial by jury
Click to expand...
But we can clearly see one man punching another.

We are allowed to restrain somone attempting to leave the scene until the police arrive and indeed I've done this myself several times.
 
Rapscallion said:
Personally, I think if anybody is trying to pin equal blame on the driver they are just out for typical TP argument.

And those that say that drivers are worse than cyclists - how many cars do you see driving down the pavements? (I say this as a driver and cyclist)
Click to expand...

When I am out and about as a pedestrian, some cyclists can be a pain riding on pavements and dashing past really close. When I was out on my cycle, cars would drive too close to me. When I am out driving, pedestrians would cross right in front of me. Out on my motorbike, nobody would see me. It really is down to not paying attention to other road users. When we do our own little activities we tend to forget about others. We simply need to be more aware of others :)
 
Rapscallion said:
Personally, I think if anybody is trying to pin equal blame on the driver they are just out for typical TP argument.
Click to expand...

not equal blame but blame nonetheless, it is clear to see and hear on the footage that the drivers aggressive vocals and him stopping to get out of his vehicle puts him partly responsible for the resulting playground ruckus.
 
neil_g said:
wholeheartedly agree :)
Click to expand...
Yet a cyclist will still get off relatively scott free. If a driver gets caught, he'll likely get fined and/or get points on their license and subsequently a likely loading on their insurance, A cyclist will at best get a fine.
 
boliston said:
the problem is that the assault is not captured by the video and he would have needed to cause actual bodily harm for it to be an indictable offence for trial by jury
Click to expand...
Quite, meaning the OPs actions may constitute an additional offense in itself (assault or wrongful imprisonment).
 
I think if the cyclist tried to pass the traffic on the right he is a complete nobwad, as a cyclist and a motorcyclist that would have been an absolute stupid decision especially as the vid shows a van coming from the right to left to take the truck at the lights.

I have a friend who has just had quite a crappy accident undertaking a van at lights and suffered a good squishing against railings, he is ok and its with his solicitors but after the event he said to me he shouldn't have made the move he was just trying to keep making progress.
 
When I went to school a very long time ago they did a cycling proficiency course, taught you road sense done in a playground and run by the police.
I also road motor bikes got my license for them to. What I am saying is you may have a car license but you may need to get a bike license too. It's easy to say think bike but may bikes need to think car/lorry and also be aware
 
The OP did just fine holding the aggressor as the one standing is usually the one that gets charged
 
ChasG said:
The OP did just fine holding the aggressor as the one standing is usually the one that gets charged
Click to expand...

But he then lashed out, legged him up and pushed him to the ground when there was no need for it.
It's ridiculous that these days everything has to result in charges.

The cyclist (allegedly) carried out a dodgy attempt to overtake.
The driver got gobby.....a girly slap-fight ensued.
Nobody "won".
Nobody got hurt.
A great deal of testosterone was deployed to no end and both parties behaved like pillocks.
That's all the video captured.

I've seen worse fights in primary school playgrounds.
 
As a cyclist and driver, I have looked at the video a few more times.
The cyclist was a complete idiot trying to overtake at the lights, he wasn't even in the zone for cyclists.
When they both reached the next set of lights and stopped, there was swearing by both people, and the cyclist thumped or kicked the lorry at least four times - that was the catalyst for what happened next, because if anyone kicked or thumped my vehicle then I would get out as well.
With both people on the road, the cyclist attempted to puch the driver at least seven times, during which the driver simply held on to him to avoid being hit.
The driver did not kick the cyclist, but used a single leg sweep to force him onto the ground so that he could be subdued.
If the cyclist continues to ride like that for much longer then he will have a very much reduced chance of survival.
 
neil_g said:
not looking for an argument at all, i just think the OP is not 100% blameless.

do you reckon if the OP had not hurled a torrent of abuse out the window and just shrugged it off instead the outcome would have been the same?

i had a car driving along the pavement behind me while i was walking to the shops the other day, it was too impatient to wait for the skip lorry that was partially blocking the road to finish its manouver.
Click to expand...

It was hardly a torrent of abuse, that is a bit of an exaggeration! And how many bikes have you seen riding on the pavement in the past few weeks?
 
andy700 said:
With both people on the road, the cyclist attempted to puch the driver at least seven times, during which the driver simply held on to him to avoid being hit.
Click to expand...
OR, the cyclist was only hitting the driver to try and prevent the illegal detention he was under. So much of the altercation takes place off camera that it is impossible to determine who started the physical fight, but we know for certain who started the verbal, which would count heavily against him (the OP) if this ever got to wasting the time of a jury. At the point where both come into shot, they are already grappling, and the first (captured) punch is after that. Based on the evidence presented, you CANNOT come to the conclusion that the grappling was to prevent a punch being thrown.

Whatever the cyclist may have done, it was a driving offense. There is no excuse to get out of your vehicle to start a brawl about overtaking.

I cannot understand why the OP has chosen to share a video all over social media of himself behaving like a prize plum, abandoning his vehicle blocking a road (itself an offense) to start a brawl.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
As a cyclist and driver, I have looked at the video a few more times.
The cyclist was a complete idiot trying to overtake at the lights, he wasn't even in the zone for cyclists.
When they both reached the next set of lights and stopped, there was swearing by both people, and the cyclist thumped or kicked the lorry at least four times - that was the catalyst for what happened next, because if anyone kicked or thumped my vehicle then I would get out as well.
With both people on the road, the cyclist attempted to puch the driver at least seven times, during which the driver simply held on to him to avoid being hit.
The driver did not kick the cyclist, but used a single leg sweep to force him onto the ground so that he could be subdued.
If the cyclist continues to ride like that for much longer then he will have a very much reduced chance of survival.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, there is no evidence on the video to suggest that the cyclist did anything wrong prior to the verbal supplied by the driver.
Everything else can be construed as a result of that.
 
Ooo, a bearded militant bikelist swinging his paddles around. He couldn't get away quick enough at the end though, could he? :D

Glad you're not hurt and nice trip by the way.
 
stupar said:
Certain cyclist's cause all other cyclists to get tarred with the same brush.
Certain car drivers cause all other drivers to get tarred with the same brush.
This situation came to a head that could have probably been avoided.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up for me.

From what we could see on the video, the cyclist could have dropped behind the lorry rather than trying to overtake, or the driver could have slowed a bit and let the cyclist in front.
When the lorry slows the cyclist could have just continued on rather than stopping in front, the driver had no need to get out of the cab.

I don't understand why people get so wound up when on the road (both cyclists and drivers) over such small things.

woof woof said:
IMO anyone who behaves badly or stupidly on the roads needs dealing with. They shouldn't escape responsibiliy, blame or punishment because of what they happen to be driving or riding.
Click to expand...

Agree with the above but this:

woof woof said:
...... I do believe thst cyclists get away with behaving badly too often perhaps partly because it's too dificult to identify and catch them but I also think that the law is both too lenient and often biased in favour of cyclists.
Click to expand...

in my opinion is wrong, drivers are let off or dealt with too leniently (or not even dealt with) to many times as well, I don't think it is weighted in the favour of cyclists.
 
nilagin said:
He was pulling away from a set of traffic lights not pulling out from the kerb. I'm sorry but if a cyclist has put themselves in close proximity to a vehicle and isn't safe, it's the cyclist that is wrong and not the driver.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure the HWC says check mirrors when going from stationary to moving. There is no caveats for not doing so when at the lights.

Filtering is also legal, and as such motorists need to be aware of it.

nilagin said:
Yet a cyclist will still get off relatively scott free. If a driver gets caught, he'll likely get fined and/or get points on their license and subsequently a likely loading on their insurance, A cyclist will at best get a fine.
Click to expand...

if a cyclist gets caught he to can have an on the spot fine. As for the insurance issue, that's pretty irrelevant.
 
Rapscallion said:
That cannot be compared to using a vehicle on a pavement.
Click to expand...


of course you can. Both illustrate how casual we are with breaking the rules when it suits us.

Past that we can also compare the harm it does, and we know the figures too. Not just for speeding but also the deaths caused by cars that mount the pavement.
 
Mattyd said:
Pretty sure the HWC says check mirrors when going from stationary to moving. There is no caveats for not doing so when at the lights.

Filtering is also legal, and as such motorists need to be aware of it.



if a cyclist gets caught he to can have an on the spot fine. As for the insurance issue, that's pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Filtering may be legal, but why would you want to be on the outside of the traffic unless you intend to turn right. A cyclist is highly unlikely to be able to accelerate quicker and even if you could, you would still need to move back over to the left afterwards.
Cyclist was a complete tool.
 
nilagin said:
Filtering may be legal, but why would you want to be on the outside of the traffic unless you intend to turn right. A cyclist is highly unlikely to be able to accelerate quicker and even if you could, you would still need to move back over to the left afterwards.
Cyclist was a complete tool.
Click to expand...
most experienced cyclists say overtaking is safer on the right as there is less chance of not being seen by someone turning left
 
boliston said:
most experienced cyclists say overtaking is safer on the right as there is less chance of not being seen by someone turning left
Click to expand...


But why the need to overtake when within seconds they would be overtaken themselves. Makes no sense at all.
 
kennethwfd said:
How can you "safely move back in?" AKA "find someone who has left a safe space between the vehicle in frount and occupy it" Nearly took out a total (deleted) moped rider who came on my offside, then without warning made a left hand turn while I was in motion - straight across my bows

I hear a lot about impatient drivers who put cyclists at risk, but it rather seems to be impatient cyclists that refuse to slow down or stop when encountering a hazard
Click to expand...
Quite easily as I sit much higher than the cars and have a much clearer view of the traffic in front and gaps ahead of me and in slow moving traffic most drivers don't tend to close gaps just to have to stop and start all the time.
 
nilagin said:
Filtering may be legal, but why would you want to be on the outside of the traffic unless you intend to turn right.
Click to expand...

overtaking on the right is safer as its the driver side and they are more likely to see you. Also, on the right is usually an mostly empty road not a tight gap that's usually found on the left between cars.

nilagin said:
A cyclist is highly unlikely to be able to accelerate quicker and even if you could, you would still need to move back over to the left afterwards.
.
Click to expand...

From experience those who overtake on the right are usually the fit and confident ones. I wouldn't be so sure that he can't keep up with most city traffic. But that's beside the point.
 
nilagin said:
Filtering may be legal, but why would you want to be on the outside of the traffic unless you intend to turn right. A cyclist is highly unlikely to be able to accelerate quicker and even if you could, you would still need to move back over to the left afterwards.
Cyclist was a complete tool.
Click to expand...

we dont know from the video how far alongside the cyclist was before the OP started moving.
 
nilagin said:
Filtering may be legal, but why would you want to be on the outside of the traffic unless you intend to turn right. A cyclist is highly unlikely to be able to accelerate quicker and even if you could, you would still need to move back over to the left afterwards.
Cyclist was a complete tool.
Click to expand...

I commute 4 days a week and most of my filtering is on the outside of traffic. You are much less likely to be caught by a passenger opening a car door suddenly or a car pulling over, more drivers also tend to watch their wing mirrors on the outside as that is where motorbikes/mopeds would normally be. It's perfectly safe to be on the outside as long as you read the traffic and take account of when you will need to pull in.

Not sure why the cyclist was on the outside in the case of the video though, once traffic is moving at any speed I would normally expect a cyclist to slot in behind any moving vehicles. I would not want to be on either side of a moving lorry.

nilagin said:
But why the need to overtake when within seconds they would be overtaken themselves. Makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I can often overtake 50-60 cars in any one stretch of road, sometime they then overtake me much further down the road, I overtake them when I am moving faster than them, they overtake me when they are going faster. As long as everyone is considerate there should be no problems.
 
cyclist was in the wrong - but as others have said why did you get out of the cab ? it is virtually impossible for him to harm you while you are surrounded by 3 tonne of metal

also word to the wise the way to restrain someone is to get hold of their punching arm and put it behind their back, even better if you can get hold of both their arms, as that way you have full control of the situation , holding the neck of their jumper from the front is asking for trouble and you are lucky that he only got in a few fairly girly slaps - in that position you are very vulnerable to a headbutt (particularly nasty if they are wearing a lid) or a knee/kick in the b*****ks
 
No need for the driver to escalate the situation with swearing or getting out the cab. How much damage is a few slaps going to do to a lorry?
Both needed to prove they were right, hence the escalation when realistically, both just needed to saty 'knob' under their breathe and move on.
 
big soft moose said:
also word to the wise the way to restrain someone is to get hold of their punching arm and put it behind their back, even better if you can get hold of both their arms, as that way you have full control of the situation , holding the neck of their jumper from the front is asking for trouble and you are lucky that he only got in a few fairly girly slaps - in that position you are very vulnerable to a headbutt (particularly nasty if they are wearing a lid) or a knee/kick in the b*****ks
Click to expand...

I always the best technique was one hand on the throat and one on the nuts then separate the two
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
ChasG said:
I always the best technique was one hand on the throat and one on the nuts then separate the two
Click to expand...

well yes - I find a good hard knee in the b*****ks effective as well - however i was thinking of the 'best way' without getting locked up for assault
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top