Cyclist v Motorist that's actually worth watching

Marktheshark

Johno100 wrote: »

And that sounds like hate language against someone who is not physically fit, perhaps you should be brought to book for a hate crime as well.

Unfortunately, this sort of sneering attitude from the lycra elite towards those who choose not to ride a push bike is far too common.

He thought he was fit, certainly so when he decided he wanted to fight and chase the cyclist.
I have a very strange feeling he might be revising that today.
:rotfl:

I would still buy him a pint at the local, I have not laughed like that for years.

Johno100

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Ask 20 of your motoring friends. Many will wrongly say they pay road tax which funds the highways.

At the moment yes, but didn't Gideon announce in the budget that VED is going to be ring fenced for use on the roads network?

Marktheshark

Another point was, what was filmed was an attempted Robbery.
The driver makes it clear he is taking his camera and attempts to utilise violence to commit the robbery.
This is contrary to the Theft act of 1968
Section 8 :
(1)A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

(2)A person guilty of robbery, or of an assault with intent to rob, shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.

The fact that Robbery failed is not a mitigating factor in the charge, if the intention was to use violence to commit robbery then he would be guilty.
That what was he said he was going to do, "I am taking the camera".
Was it not ?

Retrogamer

ChumLee wrote: »

No wasn't expecting that ending, it's just the fact the cyclist actively follows him to wind him up and then rides off. They should both be put before a court for their actions.

I don't think he planned to wind him up. The motorist passed him quite closely and seemed very passive aggressive in the overtake as he floored it right beside the cyclist as well.
It looked like the cyclist wanted to convey a message that it's not on to drive like that and that's when it all kicked off.

Alfrescodave wrote: »

Cyclist not entirely blameless. It is annoying following cyclists going down middle of road BUT the motorist should be ashamed.

If they were any further to the left they would have been in the "door zone" and when cyclist get doored by motorists opening doors without looking people still try and blame the cyclist.

splishsplash wrote: »

The motorist looked like he overtook the bike with plenty of room to spare.

If a car passes and it's close enough to kick, it's too close.

gilbert_and_sullivan

I blame that tight lycra, they'll end up sterile.
Neither of the two parties come out of it well, the cyclist is an officious twerp who would get up the nose of anyone remotely normal who's bits weren't being crushed, the motorist overreacted to silly provocation from an obvious troublemaker.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

At the moment yes, but didn't Gideon announce in the budget that VED is going to be ring fenced for use on the roads network?

From 2020. The roads fund.

Minrich

I ride a bike too , i would say 10% of drivers drive past me too close , if i chased after every one who did i would never get anywhere ! The cyclist did not need to chase after this driver and neither did he have any right to point out the drivers standard of driving . The footage quite clearly shows what happened and both were as much to blame as each other . Anyone who has a camera on the rear of his bike aswell as one facing forward are only looking for errors , low standards of driving , abuse etc ! Fortunately there's not too many of them about .

Marktheshark

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

I blame that tight lycra, they'll end up sterile.
Neither of the two parties come out of it well, the cyclist is an officious twerp who would get up the nose of anyone remotely normal who's bits weren't being crushed, the motorist overreacted to silly provocation from an obvious troublemaker.

I would say attempting to commit a robbery qualifies as "over reacting".

George_Michael

Strider590 wrote: »

But it is a hate crime.........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Seeing as Wikipedia don't have any say as to how an offence in the UK is actually defined, that webpage is pointless.
Far more useful is how the UK government actually define a hate crime.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-crime-prevention/2010-to-2015-government-policy-crime-prevention

Hate crime involves any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic. Hate crime can be motivated by disability, gender identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation.

Strider590 wrote: »

It's basically any criminal act against a minority that lives outside the aggressors social norm.

The data covers police-recorded hate crime, which shows that over 2013 to 2014, 44,480 hate crimes were recorded by the police, an increase of 5% compared with 2012 to 13, of which:
•37,484 (84%) were race hate crimes
•4,622 (10%) were sexual orientation hate crimes
•2,273 (5%) were religion hate crimes
•1,985 (4%) were disability hate crimes
•555 (1%) were transgender hate crimes

45,000 hate crimes and not a single one was because of any reason apart from the 5 groups given in the definition above.

cyclistpete

The cyclist's first mistake was to ride to far to the left he was clearly still in the door zone when the car started to overtake. He should have been in the middle of the road where it would have been impossible to over take him. If the door of the silver Golf had been opened and he had attempted to manoeuvre round it the driver would have taken him off. His second mistake was to chase the driver for an argument. He probably put him self in more danger by doing this than from the original incident. If he considered the driver to be that dangerous he should have taken the evidence to the police and let them deal with it as is there job and not his.