Cyclist v Motorist that's actually worth watching

Retrogamer

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I played the video without sound. So driver overtakes cyclist who thought they were king of the road,

Please explain?

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

then nearly runs over several pedestrians in pursuit, winds the driver up and then illegally rides on the pavement?

"Illegally" rides on the pavement to prevent the aggressive driver from stealing their camera. (if you had audio on you'd hear them say they're going to take it)

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

If the driver was me, that cyclist wouldn't be walking again. (Ps, i'm a (fair weather) cyclist too)

Maybe you'd end up how the driver did,

Mercdriver

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I played the video without sound. So driver overtakes cyclist who thought they were king of the road, then nearly runs over several pedestrians in pursuit, winds the driver up and then illegally rides on the pavement?

I wonder if this is the same cyclist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33743137
If the driver was me, that cyclist wouldn't be walking again. (Ps, i'm a (fair weather) cyclist too)

You need to reread the Highway code. The cyclist should actually have been further out because of the car doors.

Threat of violence too. Nice.

Marktheshark

Thats the point missed here.
It started as road rage banter and ended with the Driver committing an attempted Robbery caught on camera.

prowla

Seems to me like the cyclist was out looking for an "opportunity", blocking the road a bit, cameras on to see if they could get lucky.

The Highway Code says to keep left and they weren't; all of the subsequent events (mostly wrong on the part of both people) were as a result of that.

And then they gave chase to the car and tried to provoke the driver (and succeeded).

At the end, the cyclist went racing off up the pavement; what if there were pedestrians, someone coming out of their front gate? They didn't care about that.

(I'm a motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian.)

ChumLee

Marktheshark wrote: »

Thats the point missed here.
It started as road rage banter and ended with the Driver committing an attempted Robbery caught on camera.

Get real, it would be a common assault or affray at most.

Yes, we know what the book says but look at the evidence you'll have for a substantive offence once he explains he was only going to delete the footage.

Mercdriver

prowla wrote: »

Seems to me like the cyclist was out looking for an "opportunity", blocking the road a bit, cameras on to see if they could get lucky.

The Highway Code says to keep left and they weren't; all of the subsequent events (mostly wrong on the part of both people) were as a result of that.

And then they gave chase to the car and tried to provoke the driver (and succeeded).

At the end, the cyclist went racing off up the pavement; what if there were pedestrians, someone coming out of their front gate? They didn't care about that.

(I'm a motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian.)

Highway code says to allow enough space for car doors to be opened. The cyclist actually didn't leave enough space. It also says that cars must allow a metre at least beyond the handlebars. The driver didn't.

I'm also all three.

Marktheshark

Robbers do not get to explain what they intended to do with the things they rob.
Otherwise bank robbers would claim they were going to build orphanages and walk free.
He clearly says after threatening violence that he is "taking his camera".
Then he chases attempting to carry out the robbery.
All the elements are there, threat of violence, previous assault and attempt to rob, second attempt with a clear demand he is taking it.

His explaining stops there if he is charged.
If he insists he was going to delete the footage as defence, add intention to commit criminal damage on his charge sheet along with the robbery.


If he was Black with hoodie, every Daily mail Reader would be calling for his scalp.

He attempted to Rob the cyclist, he should be charged.

ChumLee

Marktheshark wrote: »

Robbers do not get to explain what they intended to do with the things they rob.
Otherwise bank robbers would claim they were going to build orphanages and walk free.
He clearly says after threatening violence that he is "taking his camera".
Then he chases attempting to carry out the robbery.
All the elements are there, threat of violence, previous assault and attempt to rob, second attempt with a clear demand he is taking it.

His explaining stops there if he is charged.
If he insists he was going to delete the footage as defence, add intention to commit criminal damage on his charge sheet along with the robbery.


If he was Black with hoodie, every Daily mail Reader would be calling for his scalp.

He attempted to Rob the cyclist, he should be charged.

Err yes they do it's called an interview.

If they can't prove theft then there is no robbery. If all he was going to do is delete the footage then there is no theft. Assault to commit criminal damage does not a robbery make.

I suggest you get back to your Mail on Sunday and leave the sensible discussions to the adults.

Mercdriver

prowla wrote: »

Seems to me like the cyclist was out looking for an "opportunity", blocking the road a bit, cameras on to see if they could get lucky.

The Highway Code says to keep left and they weren't; all of the subsequent events (mostly wrong on the part of both people) were as a result of that.

And then they gave chase to the car and tried to provoke the driver (and succeeded).

At the end, the cyclist went racing off up the pavement; what if there were pedestrians, someone coming out of their front gate? They didn't care about that.

(I'm a motorist, cyclist, and pedestrian.)

Look at rule 67 for cyclists:

67
You should:

look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so -. give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do
look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them - leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features
take care when overtaking (see Rules 162–169)

For cars overtaking bicycles:

Rule 163

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car

212
When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

I don't think the cyclist was sensible following the car. He had evidence that would substantiate a Driving without due care and attention allegation and all the details he needed. He should have passed on the information to the police. I suspect the police will have a word with both and possible NFA it.

Cyclist was in the right but did not need to labour the point by chasing the motorist.

loskie

the cyclist is just acting like a holier than though kock.
Car wasnt that close and he just wanted an argument.
He got the argument he instigated and smugly posts it on the net.

It was funny to watch though!