Cyclist v Motorist that's actually worth watching

ChumLee

Mercdriver wrote: »

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.

Is any of that backed up by an actual law?

Marktheshark

ChumLee wrote: »

. Assault to commit criminal damage does not a robbery make.

Yes it does it is the definition of Robbery or assault with intent to rob, Theft Act 1968 s.8,

Your argument is like saying I was going to give the empty cash box back once I had the bit I needed.

The law is quite straight forward here, you use violence or threat of violence to remove a persons possessions or property and you commit robbery.
What you intend to do with it makes no difference.
Failure if the victims escapes is also no defence, the offence is created by attempt.

Mercdriver

ChumLee wrote: »

Is any of that backed up by an actual law?

Highway code is always used as a basis for driving with care and attention. If you fail to go by it, then things go against you. It's easy to make allegations of Driving without due care and attention if it goes against what is detailed in the HC. Slam dunk in a magistrates court, and 3 - 9 points.

Mercdriver

loskie wrote: »

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!

You need to look again. Even on a ultra wide angle of view which the camera has, you can see it is very close.

Minrich

Marktheshark wrote: »

Yes it does it is the definition of Robbery or assault with intent to rob, Theft Act 1968 s.8,

Your argument is like saying I was going to give the empty cash box back once I had the bit I needed.

The law is quite straight forward here, you use violence or threat of violence to remove a persons possessions or property and you commit robbery.
What you intend to do with it makes no difference.
Failure if the victims escapes is also no defence, the offence is created by attempt.

Shows how little you know about Robbery and the way the law works in practice !

ChumLee

Marktheshark wrote: »

Yes it does it is the definition of Robbery or assault with intent to rob, Theft Act 1968 s.8,

Your argument is like saying I was going to give the empty cash box back once I had the bit I needed.

The law is quite straight forward here, you use violence or threat of violence to remove a persons possessions or property and you commit robbery.
What you intend to do with it makes no difference.
Failure if the victims escapes is also no defence, the offence is created by attempt.

Steals and force in order do do so are the key words. I can't see criminal damage.

Giving the empty cash box back is a poor example as where is the cash?

ChumLee

Mercdriver wrote: »

Highway code is always used as a basis for driving with care and attention. If you fail to go by it, then things go against you. It's easy to make allegations of Driving without due care and attention if it goes against what is detailed in the HC. Slam dunk in a magistrates court, and 3 - 9 points.

The cyclist isn't driving.

thistledome

Minrich wrote: »

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 .

Totally agree.

If you want to film dangerous driving to "shame" people then do so, but don't follow them in an aggressive manner (ironically having a near-miss with an innocent pedestrian on the way) and deliberately provoke them into road rage and then complain about the road rage.

Sorry, but this cyclist is a complete tool and a danger on the road IMO.

On a more general note to all road users:

Please bear in mind that we all do silly things sometimes and it would be a much nicer world if people made allowances for others. That motorist/pedestrian/cyclist you're raging at could be on his way to hospital to see a dying loved one for all you know. It doesn't hurt to be nice.

Mercdriver

ChumLee wrote: »

The cyclist isn't driving.

Sorry I thought it was clear that I was talking about the car driver. In any case all road users are subject to the same rules. You can still get done for driving offences when riding a bicycle in any case.

ChumLee

Mercdriver wrote: »

Sorry I thought it was clear that I was talking about the car driver. In any case all road users are subject to the same rules. You can still get done for driving offences when riding a bicycle in any case.

No you can't.

Some offences under the road traffic act you can though.