Motorist faces jail for assaulting cyclist

Dave70D said:
Using his car as a weapon and then punching the lad lad, he won`y get it but a lifr ban from driving and 10yrs inside.
Click to expand...
Based on what I read....................especially with him obfuscating and denying it so brazenly, if what you say were to happen then "hear, hear"...............and maybe even forget where they put the key for a few extra months ;)
 
Jail, then a 24 month driving ban. Need to hit motorists where it hurts when they do something like this
 
People like this shouldn't be allowed to drive, and some shouldn't be allowed to mix with the rest of us. Sometimes though, I do wonder about the sanity of some cyclists I see out on the roads. I use a 5 mile stretch of very windy but fast country road on my way home from work, I drive a very slow old vehicle, I meet two or three cyclists every day that I and others really struggle to over take, it wouldn't take much for them periodically to pull in and allow the line of cars behind them to overtake safely, but they dont so people take risks to get past them, its only a matter of time before someone gets into a situation.
 
I agree this driver should get jail time but he probably wont, it seems the courts are more bothered about theft than endangering peoples lives.
I ride a motorcycle and i see/experience similar behavour to this everyday, obviously not to this extreme though, people are far too comfortable when in their cars and dont think about the consequences of their actions.

Usernameuser said:
People like this shouldn't be allowed to drive, and some shouldn't be allowed to mix with the rest of us. Sometimes though, I do wonder about the sanity of some cyclists I see out on the roads. I use a 5 mile stretch of very windy but fast country road on my way home from work, I drive a very slow old vehicle, I meet two or three cyclists every day that I and others really struggle to over take, it wouldn't take much for them periodically to pull in and allow the line of cars behind them to overtake safely, but they dont so people take risks to get past them, its only a matter of time before someone gets into a situation.
Click to expand...

This attitude is partly whats wrong with drivers, drivers seem to believe that the roads belong to them, that their journy has more importance than other road users, the cyclists have every right to be on the roads, the cyclists are just doing the same as everybody else but at a slower speed.
The cyclists didnt have to take lessons, read a book on the laws of the road and pass an examination to say that they are aware of the rules and are capable of following said rules, unlike the drivers...All of which is forgotten very quickly once the license is obtained.

You dont question the sanity of the drivers that "take risks to get past them".

I have quoted you but dont see this as a personal attack because it isnt meant as such, your opinion seems to be the standard for most drivers.

Oh and btw filtering (riding between staitonary/slow moving traffic) is legal in this country, i say this as i know most car drivers think it is illegal.
 
Bassit said:
Oh and btw filtering (riding between staitonary/slow moving traffic) is legal in this country, i say this as i know most car drivers think it is illegal.
Click to expand...
As a cyclist I'm not sure it is legal but in any case I wouldn't do it myself as it is also dangerous. If a driver fails to see you and moves off while you're riding past him he could easily knock you over. It's especially dangerous around lorries or other large vehicles.

The other thing is that I don't condone this driver's behaviour at all but inconsiderate riding makes some drivers very angry. Drivers do think that cyclists generally get away with bad riding and outright illegal behaviour. Several years ago the City of London Police had cycle officers who were told to clamp down on problem cyclists but I'm not sure how successful that was. Enforcement is always difficult because cyclists are difficult to identify which is another sore point with drivers.
 
If it wasn't the cyclist it would have been someone else. Some people are just rage filled morons.
Lock him up for a while and ban him from the roads, with the ban starting the day he leaves prison.

Myself, I would probably tattoo TW@T across his forehead too, but I fear they're unlikely to go for that.
 
personally as a cyclist I would not have ridden to the front of the queue given I would have obstructed traffic as he did.
rubbish behaviour on behalf of the driver though and he should lose his licence for a good stretch.
 
Bassit said:
I agree this driver should get jail time but he probably wont, it seems the courts are more bothered about theft than endangering peoples lives.
I ride a motorcycle and i see/experience similar behavour to this everyday, obviously not to this extreme though, people are far too comfortable when in their cars and dont think about the consequences of their actions.



This attitude is partly whats wrong with drivers, drivers seem to believe that the roads belong to them, that their journy has more importance than other road users, the cyclists have every right to be on the roads, the cyclists are just doing the same as everybody else but at a slower speed.
The cyclists didnt have to take lessons, read a book on the laws of the road and pass an examination to say that they are aware of the rules and are capable of following said rules, unlike the drivers...All of which is forgotten very quickly once the license is obtained.

You dont question the sanity of the drivers that "take risks to get past them".

I have quoted you but dont see this as a personal attack because it isnt meant as such, your opinion seems to be the standard for most drivers.

Oh and btw filtering (riding between staitonary/slow moving traffic) is legal in this country, i say this as i know most car drivers think it is illegal.
Click to expand...


Thats my point, if cyclists want to be treated like other road users they should become other road users. Around here tractors pull in to allow traffic to pass, I pull in in my old landy to do the same, why cant cyclists? If you are going to use the road as a road user you are not somehow above the highway code. Look up rule 169 of the highway code,

Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

Most I meet are fairly decent, one chap will wave me past when he thinks its Ok to do so but he knows me and knows my vehicle will struggle to pass safely, but a lot of them simply dont care who or what is behind them, heaven forbid there is an emergency vehicle or someone trying to get home because their wife is in labour, we are not all crazy law breaking drivers, most of us are just normal people trying to get to our destinations safely which means safely for everyone, so I dont think its much to ask that cyclists take on the same attitude.

I think motor bikes are very different, I normally see two types, aggressive and passive, aggressive will over take using their speed/power in a situation that may well cause oncoming traffic to slow or manoeuvre, even though the motor bike can make it safely, a passive driver will take others into account and wait until they can do so without scaring the bejesus out of other road users, It basically boils down to how you treat other road users, if we all act selfishly and with little or no consideration then things will only get worse.
 
Bassit said:
This attitude is partly whats wrong with drivers, drivers seem to believe that the roads belong to them, that their journy has more importance than other road users, the cyclists have every right to be on the roads, the cyclists are just doing the same as everybody else but at a slower speed.
The cyclists didnt have to take lessons, read a book on the laws of the road and pass an examination to say that they are aware of the rules and are capable of following said rules, unlike the drivers...All of which is forgotten very quickly once the license is obtained.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right, sort of.. But..... Cyclists don't pay road tax, they also (most of them) don't have insurance.

When a cyclist shot out from an alley way in front of me, I stopped but he didn't, hitting my car and causing £3k's worth of damage on a car just 2 weeks old. I had to suffer that cost because he was riding on the road (well across it) without insurance.

As far as I am concerned, cyclists will always be a 2nd class road user until they have to pass a test, pay tax, have adequate insurance. That doesn't mean to say that I would knock someone off, but they should understand that to some, they are a real PITA, especially the ones who must ride 3 abreast on country lanes.
 
Jelster said:
Well, you're right, sort of.. But..... Cyclists don't pay road tax, they also (most of them) don't have insurance.

When a cyclist shot out from an alley way in front of me, I stopped but he didn't, hitting my car and causing £3k's worth of damage on a car just 2 weeks old. I had to suffer that cost because he was riding on the road (well across it) without insurance.

As far as I am concerned, cyclists will always be a 2nd class road user until they have to pass a test, pay tax, have adequate insurance. That doesn't mean to say that I would knock someone off, but they should understand that to some, they are a real PITA, especially the ones who must ride 3 abreast on country lanes.
Click to expand...
Well done for being the one to mention road tax in relation to cyclist. You are of course aware that motorists don’t pay road tax either. As for insurance they have the option to have general liability insurance, however any damage they might incur is minimal when compared to motorists. So what class would you put on horse riders that use the road?

PITA they might be but they still have as much right to use the road as motorists so classing them is kinda redumbnant.

As for

Usernameuser said:
Rule 169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
Click to expand...
Surely this does not apply to cyclists due to the reference checking mirrors that infers it’s applicability to vehicles with the legal requirement to have mirrors.
 
Last edited:
Jelster said:
Well, you're right, sort of.. But..... Cyclists don't pay road tax, they also (most of them) don't have insurance.

When a cyclist shot out from an alley way in front of me, I stopped but he didn't, hitting my car and causing £3k's worth of damage on a car just 2 weeks old. I had to suffer that cost because he was riding on the road (well across it) without insurance.

As far as I am concerned, cyclists will always be a 2nd class road user until they have to pass a test, pay tax, have adequate insurance. That doesn't mean to say that I would knock someone off, but they should understand that to some, they are a real PITA, especially the ones who must ride 3 abreast on country lanes.
Click to expand...
jamesev said:
Well done for being the one to mention road tax in relation to cyclist. You are of course aware that motorists don’t pay road tax either. As for insurance they have the option to have general liability insurance, however any damage they might incur is minimal when compared to motorists. So what class would you put on horse riders that use the road?

PITA they might be but they still have as much right to use the road as motorists so classing them is kinda redumbnant.
Click to expand...

Cars pay a car licence, road tax was abolished many many years ago, and nobody has a ''right'' to use a road, legally speaking.

It basically boils down to consideration of other road users, we all need to use roads safely and this means considering other users too, not just keeping your self safe.
 
Yes, we no longer pay "tax" but we do pay VED. That means I pay to use the road, whether in my car or by motorcycle. I HAVE to insure both to use them on the road. When cyclists have to legally have insurance cover, I may change my way of thinking. You're not one of those lycra clad morons that like to ride 3 abreast are you?
 
Bassit said:
This attitude is partly whats wrong with drivers, drivers seem to believe that the roads belong to them, that their journy has more importance than other road users, the cyclists have every right to be on the roads, the cyclists are just doing the same as everybody else but at a slower speed.
Click to expand...

I don’t know where you are that you see this, but I seldom see cars or motorbikes weaving on and off the pavement around pedestrians, cutting across pedestrian crossings causing pedestrians to jump aside, disregarding red lights and stop signs like you are saying they do...
 
jamesev said:
Well done for being the one to mention road tax in relation to cyclist. You are of course aware that motorists don’t pay road tax either. As for insurance they have the option to have general liability insurance, however any damage they might incur is minimal when compared to motorists. So what class would you put on horse riders that use the road?

PITA they might be but they still have as much right to use the road as motorists n
Click to expand...

Always exceedingly annoys me when folk split hairs, drivers pay to use the roads, cyclists don't!
 
Jelster said:
Yes, we no longer pay "tax" but we do pay VED. That means I pay to use the road, whether in my car or by motorcycle. I HAVE to insure both to use them on the road. When cyclists have to legally have insurance cover, I may change my way of thinking. You're not one of those lycra clad morons that like to ride 3 abreast are you?
Click to expand...

Who me? No, I haven't rode a bike for a good 20 odd years , and back then I was living in Holland where we had cycle paths. And honestly, I doubt I would sport lycra very well, that alone would cause accidents. You do know that you also have to insure a car if it isnt on the road?
 
Last edited:
All i can say is being both a motorist and a motorcyclist, i try to repect all road users equally, that includes pedestrians.

As a motorcyclist that is vulnerable i only wish all other road users would extend the same courtesy to all other road users too, but apparently some of us are second class road users in some peoples minds.

I will post up some videos (when i eventually post em to youtube) of some of the things car drivers get upto and how little respect some have for anybody, you may be suprised...In a five minute ride i can and often do have to avoid being in an accident (through no fault of my own) around 3-4 times.

@Dave1 i live in a semi rural area so i dont see this much, i do see it when i visit family in a city but they are usually teenagers, they havent quite got much sense at that age...

EDIT: I think a lot of you should go read the highway code again.
 
Last edited:
Mikesphotaes said:
Always exceedingly annoys me when folk split hairs, drivers pay to use the roads, cyclists don't!
Click to expand...
Well if you got the facts right rather than come up with some myth to try to substantiate your view of cyclists then hairs would not be split . Firstly road funding comes from general taxation not VED which is generally emissions based therefore cyclists pay the same rate as lower cost fully electric cars ie £0. In all likelihood they pay income tax so they do contribute to road maintenance and hence have as much right to use it. As you put paying to use roads is paying for their upkeep , cars do damage to roads due to weight, I very much doubt cycles cause anywhere near the same levels.

As for insurance can you cite the relative levels of damage to vehicles and persons between cars and bicycles annually. Again I suspect the figure for bicycles is a minuscule fraction of that for cars, so the call for cyclists to have insurance is about as warranted as it would be for pedestrians who inadvertently may damage cars by scratching them as they walk past.

Dave1 said:
I don’t know where you are that you see this, but I seldom see cars or motorbikes weaving on and off the pavement around pedestrians, cutting across pedestrian crossings causing pedestrians to jump aside, disregarding red lights and stop signs like you are saying they do...
Click to expand...

You only need to go to the Facebook page “idiot uk drivers exposed” to see what motorists get up to.
 
Last edited:
Bassit said:
@Dave1 i live in a semi rural area so i dont see this much, i do see it when i visit family in a city but they are usually teenagers, they havent quite got much sense at that age...
Click to expand...

So you agree that there’s a largish minority of cyclists (in most large towns and cities) who don’t do the same as everyone else (just at a slower speed)?
 
Last edited:
No, i dont...i visit the city twice a week and i see teenagers being teenagers, mostly on the pavement weaving in and out of the pedestians, whilst doing a wheelie.

I also see lots of motorcyclists with no helmets and cars driving up and down a certain road at stupid speeds showing of to their mates stood outside of the pub on said road, this is a rough area and i know this isnt the norm everywhere else.

The cyclists i see in my area are usually on the roads and are simply going form a to b.

I dont judge a large group of people from a minority.
 
Last edited:
irrespective of the rights or wrongs in this instant, I certainly think cyclists should have to have some sort of insurance before going on the public highway that includes footpaths. What claim can say a pedestrian pushing a baby pushchair make if hit by a cyclist? it don't make any sense to me why not have insurance and should be made law
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
The last highway code book I read had a flaming torch as a warning sign a school was ahead, and slow moving traffic was an offence being classes as a moving obstruction. Oh and in well over 50/60 years of having a car licence it has never had any endorsements, not even a parking fine

As for that number of rule it is just beaurocracy gone mad, when I took my test in 1962 we passed just on driving, depending on how good the examiner thought you were reflected in the test driving time. Anything from 15 minutes to 1 hour, mine was just 15 minutes but negotiated roadworks safely which helped, and 3 questions at the end of the test. Seemed to work ok back then
 
Last edited:
Here is something that I think to myself sometimes, if I dropped my Landy into low range in front of a cycilist and cruised along at 3 MPH on a windy road passing several laybys and not bothering to pull in, how long would it take before they realised they were in a dangerous situation and red mist set in? A genuine question to any cycilists.
 
Usernameuser said:
Here is something that I think to myself sometimes, if I dropped my Landy into low range in front of a cycilist and cruised along at 3 MPH on a windy road passing several laybys and not bothering to pull in, how long would it take before they realised they were in a dangerous situation and red mist set in? A genuine question to any cycilists.
Click to expand...

Genuine answer - if you crawled at 3mph in your Landy I wouldn't have a red mist moment. Instead I would just over take you at the next safest opportunity.

Now genuine side apart, we all know that 3mph for cyclists is a gross exaggeration and that you are purely trying to make out that all cyclists are slow and and dangerous therefore not worth of being on the road.
 
Usernameuser said:
Here is something that I think to myself sometimes, if I dropped my Landy into low range in front of a cycilist and cruised along at 3 MPH on a windy road passing several laybys and not bothering to pull in, how long would it take before they realised they were in a dangerous situation and red mist set in? A genuine question to any cycilists.
Click to expand...
There’s a big difference, cyclist cycle at an achievable speed if you followed the scenario you just described you’d not be at the achievable speed of the transport you’d be doing it to be bloody minded. It’s all about tolerance and it seems that there is a general attitude from motorists that not going 30 in a 30 zone means you shouldn’t be on the road.
 
So, both of you didnt think or comment about the part where I fail to pull over and allow traffic to pass, as written in the highway code?
 
stupar said:
Genuine answer - if you crawled at 3mph in your Landy I wouldn't have a red mist moment. Instead I would just over take you at the next safest opportunity.

Now genuine side apart, we all know that 3mph for cyclists is a gross exaggeration and that you are purely trying to make out that all cyclists are slow and and dangerous therefore not worth of being on the road.
Click to expand...
That was not my intention at all, if a cyclist slows a vehicle from an achievable 60 to 15 then a slower moving vehicle slowing a cyclist from 15 to 4 isnt an exaggeration, and a cyclist who refuses to pull in and allow traffic to pass is deemed dangerous, as per the highway code. I never said they should not be on the road, in fact its refreshing to see people out on bikes and fair play to them.
 
Usernameuser said:
So, both of you didnt think or comment about the part where I fail to pull over and allow traffic to pass, as written in the highway code?
Click to expand...

No because your situation would never play out in real life and the reality is that you are just trying to get a rise out of cyclists.

It's interesting that in this case it has been proven that the driver was in the wrong yet to some it is still the cyclists fault.

I cycle 50 miles a week to and from my work and see my fair share of dangerous driving on a regular basis.

My personal favourite is cycling along a street which has a 20mph limit which I can easily do. I cycle in the primary position on the road because of cars parked on the left. Interestingly cars still overtake.....what's more alarming is when they do it at a junction on the opposite site!

Still I guess somewhere in that example it is the cyclists fault and that's just one example I have of many scenarios I encounter of dangerous driving.
 
jamesev said:
There’s a big difference, cyclist cycle at an achievable speed if you followed the scenario you just described you’d not be at the achievable speed of the transport you’d be doing it to be bloody minded. It’s all about tolerance and it seems that there is a general attitude from motorists that not going 30 in a 30 zone means you shouldn’t be on the road.
Click to expand...
You could be right, but my general attitude is if im slow I pull over to allow traffic to pass, its easy to do, it takes no time at all and it means im not obstructing other road users.
 
stupar said:
No because your situation would never play out in real life and the reality is that you are just trying to get a rise out of cyclists.

It's interesting that in this case it has been proven that the driver was in the wrong yet to some it is still the cyclists fault.

I cycle 50 miles a week to and from my work and see my fair share of dangerous driving on a regular basis.

My personal favourite is cycling along a street which has a 20mph limit which I can easily do. I cycle in the primary position on the road because of cars parked on the left. Interestingly cars still overtake.....what's more alarming is when they do it at a junction on the opposite site!

Still I guess somewhere in that example it is the cyclists fault and that's just one example I have of many scenarios I encounter of dangerous driving.
Click to expand...
I suppose different roads will have different situations, for instance, the 5 mile windy stretch of road on my commute is a fast road with blind bends, there are at least four laybys, I regularly see riders with ten or more cars behind them ride past these laybys with little thought for the traffic behind them, they could easily pull in.
 
Usernameuser said:
I suppose different roads will have different situations, for instance, the 5 mile windy stretch of road on my commute is a fast road with blind bends, there are at least four laybys, I regularly see riders with ten or more cars behind them ride past these laybys with little thought for the traffic behind them, they could easily pull in.
Click to expand...

You are right in that different roads will play out different situations.
In your example whilst it might be courteous for a cyclist to pull over there is nothing written in law saying they have to.
Furthermore a slow moving cyclist isn't like a slow moving vehicle to which they laybys are designed for.
 
Actually all you show is that for ever moron cyclist there is equally a moron driver....
There are too many morons on the planet...

I Ride a bicycle, drive a car, ride a motorcycle, & used to drive a bus. All forms of transport have morons - you just dont want to be in the smallest least protected vehicle when you encounter them....
 
stupar said:
You are right in that different roads will play out different situations.
In your example whilst it might be courteous for a cyclist to pull over there is nothing written in law saying they have to.
Furthermore a slow moving cyclist isn't like a slow moving vehicle to which they laybys are designed for.
Click to expand...

The laybys are fine for cyclists to use, and the highway code does state that a slow moving vehicle should pull over where appropriate, I would assume this includes cyclists. I take it you cycle in more urban areas? I used to cycle everywhere years ago, it was my only mode of transport, I often think about cycling again but im so out of shape it would probably finish me off altogether.
 
Usernameuser said:
The laybys are fine for cyclists to use, and the highway code does state that a slow moving vehicle should pull over where appropriate, I would assume this includes cyclists. I take it you cycle in more urban areas? I used to cycle everywhere years ago, it was my only mode of transport, I often think about cycling again but im so out of shape it would probably finish me off altogether.
Click to expand...

Like I say a bike is not a vehicle persay so isn't duty bound by law to pull over but courtesy can always play a part inb any walk of life.

I cycle 50 miles a week in the heart of Edinburgh so I jostle with cars, taxis, buses, trams and other cyclists. You need your wits about you that's for sure and sometimes I think city cycling is worse than on the open road.
 
I find it amusing that whenever a story like this crops up suddenly this 'us and them' attitude rears it's ugly head. People referring to cyclists as if they are a different species!

I'm a cyclist, I obey the rules of the road, I signal when turning, I cycle well in to the curb to allow vehicles pass me, I have never been involved in any kind of accident on the bike bar falling off of it a few times! :D

It IS legal weave through stalled traffic at lights, you get to the front so that you can get across faster and then pull in to let the cars by, that is what you are supposed to do. Drivers who apparently know it all must surely know this too.

On the incident, I doubt the driver would have done same to a bigger man, it takes a certain type to do something this bullish and stupid. I would bet this isn't the first time he's bullied and physically hurt someone, might just be the first time he's been caught
 
Throughout the course of my life I have been a motorcyclist, a cyclist, a pedestrian and a car driver.

There are f***wits in every category. People on here seem to suggest their chosen mode of transport has less f***wits than others.

That's laughable.

This bloke was a f***wit and a nasty piece of s*** bully. Jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top