Motorbiker punched off my wing mirror deliberately - What can I do?

Strider590

davybull wrote: »

Having said that many cage drivers act like they are blind.

And then there's another type....... The idiots that see a biker riding towards them and feign pulling out just to scare them into slowing down.

People have this misconception that noise = speed, so they don't even need to be going fast. I've had all sorts of abuse shouted at me whilst out driving through villages in the kit car (usually from 60+ year old men), "SLOW DOWN!!!!!!!" despite being just behind some numpty doing 25mph.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

ChumLee wrote: »

If a simple damage is too confusing they should consider resignation.

Depend whether the stories they hear match with what we've been told. Small amount of damage, he said, she said conflicting accounts, minor value of property damage, it may not be deemed worthy of further police time. Just setting out a range of possibilities.

ChumLee

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Depend whether the stories they hear match with what we've been told. Small amount of damage, he said, she said conflicting accounts, minor value of property damage, it may not be deemed worthy of further police time. Just setting out a range of possibilities.

Hardy confusing.

Mercdriver

londonTiger wrote: »

You can pull out of a junction slowly and with caution where situation requires it.

Case in point. Poor visibility. I was driving in a !!!!!! area with narrow roads and lots of houses and every house has 2+ cars.

Well I was pulling out of a junction onto a main road to turn right. White van was parked on the main road exactly on the corner of the junction completely blocking my view. I proceed slowly every 4-5 seconds driving at 1mph or less to get a better view. I was maybe 3/4 into lane one and stationary and then a motorbike rider stops right in front of me and gives me a stupid look like Im sort of a motobike driver murderer or something.

Guy was a complete idiot. Typical motorbike rider who only sees the road from their POV. If he had any common sense he would know the dangers of these types of roads and should know that I'm perfectly entitled to crawl forwards if my view is blocked.

He might be going 20mph say and if there is a collision, he will hit the road himself. If you have a collision in your car, you will have a dent in your car, but the chances are you will be uninjured. I've had an idiot pull out in front of me (on a bicycle) when I had right of way even though I was wearing illuminous green clothes on a clear sunny day and the sun wasn't in his eyes. I was off work for 7 months and almost bankrupt at the end of it as I had only just come back from a major operation and had exhausted my company holiday pay.

In that position, you're right. you would get a look from me too.

I do love posts where people say:

"That 2 wheeled vehicle that I didn't see was going too fast! Therefore not my fault"

How do you know it's going too fast if you didn't see it?

Cause and effect. You've decided that it must have been going too fast because you didn't see it. Doesn't mean it's true...

Marvel1

enfield_freddy wrote: »

the OP pulled across the path of an oncoming vehicle END OFF

So next time you are behind a vehicle waiting to turn right for let's say 2 minutes (as that seems long time when waiting) and the road is clear but the driver in front wants to be very sure, you must be patient

esmerobbo

If you look at the map around south Wimbledon tube station there doesn't seem to be a long radius bend where a bike would be out of view anywhere near a right hand turn.

The biker probably went too far but standing his bike on the front wheel to avoid a collision may well have released a little too much adrenaline.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/South+Wimbledon/@51.41531,-0.19198,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x487608a6b435ccbd:0xbf58b869f4080a7e

rich13348

esmerobbo wrote: »

If you look at the map around south Wimbledon tube station there doesn't seem to be a long radius bend where a bike would be out of view anywhere near a right hand turn.

The biker probably went too far but standing his bike on the front wheel to avoid a collision may well have released a little too much adrenaline.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/South+Wimbledon/@51.41531,-0.19198,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x487608a6b435ccbd:0xbf58b869f4080a7e

This one 135 Kingston Rd

http://goo.gl/maps/16Paa

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

ChumLee wrote: »

Hardy confusing.

May be not, but if motorcyclist claims damage was already done and what he did was flick the broken mirror while saying "Look where you are going - oh, you can't." and it turns out the witness just saw an argument the situation would be different to what we stand. The police do hear both sides and have to make a judgement on how to proceed.

A lot of complaints about police not following up are because they really don't have enough solid evidence to be worth continuing, ultimately to court. They also are mindful of their matrix they share with the CPS which tells them whether an offence is worth proceeding to court with.

ChumLee

IanMSpencer wrote: »

May be not, but if motorcyclist claims damage was already done and what he did was flick the broken mirror while saying "Look where you are going - oh, you can't." and it turns out the witness just saw an argument the situation would be different to what we stand. The police do hear both sides and have to make a judgement on how to proceed.

A lot of complaints about police not following up are because they really don't have enough solid evidence to be worth continuing, ultimately to court. They also are mindful of their matrix they share with the CPS which tells them whether an offence is worth proceeding to court with.

What is this matrix you speak of? I know there's a threshold test, there's either evidence to support a successful prosecution or there isn't. For some reason maybe lack of understanding you're trying to make it sound incredibly complicated.

bazster

ChumLee wrote: »

Try reading the post I quoted then. It was always a question about the offenders insurance and not the victims.

I see the what you quoted, also says nothing about the offender's insurance. As for what it "always" was, if there is material information in earlier posts then quote it.

For someone whose primary purpose here seems to be to parade his own clever-dickery you need to do better.