A white van driver filmed forcing a cyclist off the road by swerving at him has caused a storm on social media, with one renowned QC offering free legal advice to sue.
The van, with a Vidette UK Ltd livery, was on the westbound stretch of the A272 when its driver overtook the cyclist.
He swerved into him, forcing him onto the grass verge.
Luckily the cyclist was able to stay upright and was unharmed.
Martin Porter QC, also known as the Cycling Silk, described the incident on Twitter as “a very serious assault”.
He added: “If the person on the bike wants my (free) advice re ensuring that Vidette driver is prosecuted, please contact me.”
On Facebook, the company made the following statement:
I am writing this letter to express my sincere apologies to the cyclist that was very unfortunate to experience a very irresponsible and dangerous move by an engineer driving one of Vidette’s vehicles on Sunday 30th April.
My wife and I are both very keen cyclist ourselves so fully appreciate the impact/trauma that a near miss like this would have on anyone in this situation.
I have now interviewed the driver and can honestly say the he is so full of remorse and fully understands how lucky he and the cyclist have been on this occasion and swears to never let himself get into a position like this again He stated that he was having personal problems with his family and his mind “was all over the place” and that he is so sorry. I do believe him and could tell his apology was genuine, however we cannot condone nor let this behaviour have any place within our company, we have decided to make an example here and to promote driver awareness going forward. He has been dismissed from immediate effect!
This experience has made me realise that I can do something to help reduce this sort of behaviour on our roads so have decided to introduce a driver awareness course into our already busy H&S training matrix for all our employees. The AA seem to have a nice one called Driver Alertness Education, I have actioned this to be investigated & organised immediately.
Adding to the above, I have had full backing & agreement in these decisions from all of our management team.
I hope this letter will also be of comfort to the other road users & cyclists who have written their concerns.NB – I was on holiday until early this morning which made an immediate answer nigh on impossible. I understand that the vast majority of mails and social media comments are from concerned genuine people however, we received some really hurtful mails wishing all sorts of medical curses on our office staff which swayed me into taking down the access from our web site & social media pages.
Sincere apologies,
Ian Frazer
Managing Director
Vidette Uk
One Twitter user wrote: “I’d make the driver ride a bike while people drive vans at him until he gets the message.”
Another said: “Cyclist shouldn’t be in the middle of the road like that. Driver should face prosecution though. Endangered guy’s life.”
BBC radio presenter Jeremy Vine, who also shared the video on Twitter, said: “It actually takes practise to drive as badly as this.”
Vidette UK describes itself as a “Building Contractor to the Leisure Industry”.
Cyclists have also taken to Google to express their displeasure, resulting in the company having a one star rating on the search engine.
One wrote: “It appears that your extensive Health and Safety accreditation doesn’t cover travelling between jobs?
“I’m disgusted and enraged. I hope that the police have been informed.”
Another said: “Vidette UK Ltd have undermined their own claims to be Health and Safety compliant. I would now expect Cooperative UK, Greene King, Toni and Guy, Greenwich Council, Renault UK and other clients to re-consider their position as clients.”
The company said on Twitter “appropriate action has been taken” against the driver before later deleting its account.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
117 thoughts on “VIDEO: Van driver forces cyclist off road; QC offers help to sue”
Jesus he could of easily
Jesus he could of easily killed him. Premeditated attack!
If this driver isn’t
If this driver isn’t prosecuted then there really is no hope left for any cyclist.
john1967 wrote:
+1. And it applies to anyone using the roads, not just cyclists.
A message to the MD: a Facebook damage limitation exercise isn’t adequate. The driver’s so-called “remorse” doesn’t cut it, he knew what he was doing and anyone can use that word when it suits them. Actions speak louder than words, the public needs to see that you care.
Simon E wrote:
+1. And it applies to anyone using the roads, not just cyclists.
A message to the MD: a Facebook damage limitation exercise isn’t adequate. The driver’s so-called “remorse” doesn’t cut it, he knew what he was doing and anyone can use that word when it suits them. Actions speak louder than words, the public needs to see that you care.— john1967
Hear hear. Instead of the bullshit about the poor dear’s bad day, and meaningless waffle about H&S matrices, it should have been as simple ” the driver did wrong. We apologise. We sacked him, reported him to the police and told all the other staff we would do the same again.”
The “awareness course” is nonsense. Anyone who fails to know this twunts behaviour was wrong has no business driving anything.
Simon E wrote:
+1. And it applies to anyone using the roads, not just cyclists.
A message to the MD: a Facebook damage limitation exercise isn’t adequate. The driver’s so-called “remorse” doesn’t cut it, he knew what he was doing and anyone can use that word when it suits them. Actions speak louder than words, the public needs to see that you care.— john1967
To be fair the MD has sacked the driver so he has taken action.
Dropped wrote:
Well he says he has, in a letter so larded with sympathy for the assailant, self justificatory piffle and management speak drivel it’s hard to take any if it as real.
^ what he said.
^ what he said.
That said, fair play to vidette
. Policing the roads is not their responsibility – it’s, erm, the police’s (and DVLA, etc). Assuming they pay tax (and I see no reason not to assume that), they’re as entitled as anyone else to expect a driving license to mean “this person is fit for the road”.
I would say they’ve at the very least met their duties, and quite possibly gone beyond. Especially if they’re being truthful about the driver’s “bad day”. Sympathy is NOT a bad quality. Excusing recklessness is.
rggfddne wrote:
If sympathy for someone’s ” bad day” means allowing them to go and attempt to kill people, then it’s a bloody terrible quality. And yes, it surely is their responsibility to require proper behaviour from their employees.
Kudos to the guy for staying
Kudos to the guy for staying upright. That was some Sagan-esque bike handling!
On a more serious note, if this isn’t taken up by the CPS this has to be a private prosecution. If it were up to me he’d be done for attempted murder.
Good skills by the rider
Good skills by the rider there, he went with the flow. If he’d resisted he may well have ended up under the wheels.
that’s attempted murder, not
that’s attempted murder, not poor driving
Let’s hope the Cycle Defense
Let’s hope the Cycle Defense Fund gets to work on this.
I think that’s a fair
I think that’s a fair response and thoughtful from the company. The driver needs to be prosecuted though, ultimately he’s used a vehicle as a weapon and could easily have killed someone. There aren’t any excuses or justification.
Did 4 hours today and 5 close
Did 4 hours today and 5 close shaves. Think everyone has at least on on each spin
mylesrants wrote:
I did a ride, about a year ago and I met nothing but polite and very consdierate drivers, about a year ago and I even commented on it on the club facebook as it was a bit wierd.
mylesrants wrote:
Did Tour of the Peaks yesterday and with several thousand riders partaking Winnats Pass (13% and about a mile long) was closed. One driver was so enraged at the minutes inconvenience this was going to cause she abused the steward, revved her engine, nearly hit a right turning cyclist, punsih passed about twenty more swerving violently left between groups…
Sometimes I think humanity has failed!
remember the following are
remember the following are all acceptable reasons for delay on a journey
horses
tractors
Milkfloat
learner drivers
people storing their cars on the public highway causing an obstruction
too many cars trying to us the road st once.
but it us not acceptable to be delayed by a cyclist who doesn’t want to be passed where the road is too narrow.
Also remember that one person in a car is entitled to more road space than six people on bikes.
bikelikebike, you really
bikelikebike, you really should stop driving, anywhere, not just in “Scandinavia”… And see a psychologist.
The number of wannabe forum
The number of wannabe forum lawyers here getting it all completely wrong is painful.
1. The cyclist is not at fault.
2. The van driver was not allowed to overtake while within the solid white line.
3. Anyone that thinks a court would accept cyclists position as mitigation should definitely consider a career as far away from law as possible.
Is it just me, but is that
Is it just me, but is that rather a less than sincere letter?
“My wife and I are both very keen cyclist ourselves so fully appreciate the impact/trauma that a near miss like this would have on anyone in this situation.” Both very keen cyclists, so that’s good, but it wasn’t a near miss, he hit the cyclist.
“He has been dismissed from immediate effect!” Why would you put an exclamation mark at the end of that sentence? Unless you didn’t really mean it of course.
“This experience has made me realise that I can do something to help reduce this sort of behaviour on our roads so have decided to introduce a driver awareness course into our already busy H&S training matrix for all our employees.” Why would you bother mentioning that your “H&S training matrix” was busy? Do they even have a “H&S training matrix”? Do they even know what they are talking about? This is prime grade management hogwash designed to deflect criticism.
The entire letter reads like the Dilbert management-speak dictionary of how to placate angry customers, and I didn’t believe a word of it.
A simple, straightforward statement that the driver had been dismissed and that they were telling all drivers to obey the law and not endanger other road users would have been far more effective and believable.
Given its harder to
Given its harder to appreciate what’s happening from videos, looking at the top picture, and assuming double white lines – road’s pretty similar to the double solid section – where would the rider be positioned so that the van could make an overtake that is unequivocally safe for the rider? On the grass? The van seems to be bashing the rider in a pretty meek secondary. For safety’s sake (i.e. NOT gratuitously implementing the law as some seem to think), the rider may as well be anywhere at all in their lane AFAICS (well, assuming a nutter isn’t following as here. obvs) . Simples.
Gobsmacked. Seen some
Gobsmacked. Seen some horrific footage recently but this could have been fatal. Hope the parties involved contact the police and get the QC mentioned.
Could presume that given
Could presume that given there is a solid line on the driver’s side the van could not ovetake without breaking the line and the law. The cyclist may have bee ‘taking the lane’ as we are encouraged to do in tight situations. Hugging the kerb just encourages close passes in my experience and filmed evidence.
I understand why the cyclist
I understand why the cyclist was riding away from the edge of the road.
If you look int he video, the van passes within inches, and swerves in. If the cyclist was against the kerb, he would have no wiggle room and would be in the ditch or under the vans wheels.
I tend to ride away from the kerb when I am going round corners or where there are solid white lines to give me this 1.5m escape zone. A vehicle may be able to squeeze through with oncoming traffic without crossing the line, but at least I can move over to prevent a collision. Put the safety on your terms, not the drivers. If a driver doesn’t give you enough space, you have that safe area to swerve into.
in short, the cyclist was doing the right thing, and therefore actually prevented a collision. By riding central, the van would risk his own life by passing into oncoming traffic, and self-preservation stopped the van trying an overtake into oncoming traffic. The cyclist also had room to escape when the van decided to bully past.
Also, the video is from a following cyclist. I wonder how the van ended up between the two of them, and whether the cyclists position was a reaction to a previous dodgy overtake?
Van driver deserved to be
Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver … he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief … should get jail time if I had my way.
Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane … there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he’s ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.
Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn’t surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.
nbrus wrote:
How much gap do you think a cyclist should leave between themselves and the kerb?
How much gap should a driver leave between their vehicle and a cyclist when overtaking?
Looking at the photo at the top of this story it seems pretty obvious that there isn’t enough space for a safe overtaking manoeuvre that doesn’t involve crossing into the other lane.
Rich_cb wrote:
Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver … he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief … should get jail time if I had my way.
Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane … there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he’s ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.
Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn’t surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.
— Rich_cb How much gap do you think a cyclist should leave between themselves and the kerb? How much gap should a driver leave between their vehicle and a cyclist when overtaking? Looking at the photo at the top of this story it seems pretty obvious that there isn’t enough space for a safe overtaking manoeuvre that doesn’t involve crossing into the other lane.— nbrus
Err, take another look at the attached picture … the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes … that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.
nbrus wrote:
The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites.
There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike.
So I don’t think that picture does show sufficient space.
Rich_cb wrote:
That looks like a broken white line on his side, to me – that would mean the van could move across it to overtake.
davel wrote:
Watch the video.
At the start there are double whites.
The cyclist moves over after they end.
Rich_cb wrote:
So he does: exactly as you say, which suggests the cyclist has plenty of road sense and makes the driver buzzing him during the unbroken lines even more concerning.
Rich_cb wrote:
Err, take another look at the attached picture … the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes … that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.
— Rich_cb The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites. There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike. So I don’t think that picture does show sufficient space.— nbrus
Try this…
nbrus wrote:
You are aware of the effect of perspective right?
You’ve also placed the cyclist far to close to the kerb.
The safe distance is 75cm.
The road doesn’t change width noticeably so the top picture with the two directly side by side gives the true picture.
Rich_cb wrote:
Err, safe from what? … is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?
nbrus wrote:
If you need that explaining to you then you are clearly not a cyclist.
Rich_cb wrote:
Err, safe from what? … is the grass going to bite his ankles if he gets too close to it?
— Rich_cb If you need that explaining to you then you are clearly not a cyclist.— nbrus
Oh, I’m a cyclist alright … and I also drive … I can appreciate that we need to share the road and not try and own it.
nbrus wrote:
Well next time you go out, on one of the many rides I’m sure you go on, try riding as close to the edge of the road as you advocated in the picture you posted.
Let me know how it goes…
nbrus wrote:
I think you might have missed what Rich_cb just pointed out to me.
At the start of the video the cyclist and van have unbroken white lines. There isn’t enough room for a safe, legal overtake so the cyclist is in primary.
As soon as the line on their side breaks, the cyclist looks like he’s moving over a bit. He doesn’t really have much chance to demonstrate that, though, because the van then pushes him off the road.
Cyclist was spot on, here, and as soon as the lines broke the van could’ve moved across the centre to overtake, as soon as it was clear.
davel wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
That is not enough room to safely overtake. If you think it is, then please don’t drive. It will be safer for everyone.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davelRubbish! Please hand in your driver’s licence today if you really think that a legal overtaking manouvre could be SAFELY done in this instance.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
I certainly wouldn’t want to be overtaken there by a large van trying to squeeze past inside the lane. I also wonder why the desperate rush from this van driver – would anyone really die if his journey was extended by a minute or so?
Which leaves me wondering about the company as a whole – it’s all fine for the MD to dismiss this particular driver, but maybe the corporate culture sees travel time as wasted, and demands that it be minimised.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
wtf.
That might – might – qualify as a not-abysmal-overtaking-distance, only if the cyclist was in the dust or on the grass. And you wouldn’t ride there, would you?
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
A number of factors usually contribute to a collision. You can look at this picture and say technically there is enough room for the driver to get by but it simply is not safe. All it would take is for the cyclist to drift, an animal to startle from the undergrowth and cause the cyclist to swerve, for the car in the opposite carriageway to drift over the centre line. Assuming the van would be looking to pass at 50mph plus on that type of road the foreseable consequences to the cyclist of forcing past massively outweight the inconvenience to the driver of having to moderate their speed for a short distance.
Even then, the cyclist moves back to secondary to allow the van to overtake once it is safe to do so but is subjected to a very deliberate, very aggressive and highly dangerous piece of road rage.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
Except that the van is going to have to accelerate uphill, then cross the centre line, on a bend, towards the oncoming white car with no clear picture of what else might be coming, or how fast. Double white lines are put there for a reason.
If I were the cyclist, I’d have placed myself like that as well to give myself some space on the inside to move to in case the driver behind tried anything stupid. Grass edged roads usually have terrible and wandering road surfaces close to the verge, so I too would want to be well out from the edge of the road.
The thing is, I’ve just got back from two days touring around Wiltshire and Devon and never encountered anything but polite driving, with lots of cars hanging back and waiting, giving way to me on narrow lanes etc. All the sort of considerate driving you know happens, but rarely see consistently for two entire days.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
That’s a Renault Trafic van (you can see the “Trafic” badge on RHS door), so we have a reference dimension of 2m width (1,956mm to be precise – from AutoTrader) I believe this includes wing mirrors.
Its at an angle in the picture, and perspective/camera lenses plays a part, but I think most would agree that if you imagine another Trafic van in the gap indicated by the red line, so the van is parallel to the one in the photo and wing mirrors touching, the nearside wheel of our imaginary van would be firmly on the grass. So the red line indicates a gap of less than 2 metres, I would estimate around 1.5m.
Now lets condider the distances used on the mat used by WMP (and rolling out nationwide) in Operation ClosePass… rider’s wheel 0.75m from kerb (white line), safe passing distance 1.5m = 2.25m total distance that the van would need to be from white line.
For the pass to be safely on the rider would have had to be on the grass to begin with.
CygnusX1 wrote:
That’s a Renault Trafic van (you can see the “Trafic” badge on RHS door), so we have a reference dimension of 2m width ….. snip ….
For the pass to be safely on the rider would have had to be on the grass to begin with.— nbrus
Those were my thoughts. I’d looked up transit van width which came up with 1.8m.
It’s always difficult with these videos to judge speed with any degree of accuracy, but the van is clearly far too close behind the rider – that’s what struck me when it started playing. Obviously it only gets worse from then on, but the stopping distance looked minimal to me and that alone looks like it should support a dangerous driving charge.
The other point I’d make is about double, solid white lines: in my experience, they are restricted to only the points where they absolutely have to be. In many places, I see them change to single solid & dashed in places I wouldn’t dream of overtaking another car. They’re also usually on the type of roads, like this one, where there’s not enough space to overtake anything safely whilst staying entirely in your lane. So as others have said, I’d make no criticism of the rider for choosing not to ride in the gutter.
Also as others have said, impressive that he managed to stay upright.
CygnusX1 wrote:
That is actually excluding wingmirrors, it’s 2,283mm including
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
Double white lines mean you mustn’t overtake – even if you don’t cross the lines. Whether there was enough room or not is irrelevant.
scrumpydave wrote:
Wrong. Just plain wrong.
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Same applies if there is a parked car, fallen tree or other obstruction on your side of the road where to “not cross” the white line would mean that you are unable to proceed.
I had a car tailgating me on a bendy stretch of road with double whites and he refused to overtake, even though I could see the road was perfectly clear and was waving him through – he gesticulated to the double white lines.
As we entered the little village, the double whites ceased and he squeezed past on the narrowest pinch point as soon as he could. He wasn’t concerned about not killing me. Just about not crossing these double whites! If only it worked the same at advanced stop lines or cycle paths marked with a solid white line…
scrumpydave wrote:
That’s not strictly true. They mean you can’t cross the line unless you’re turning right, passing something stationary or a bike/horse/road-roller etc moving slower than 10mph. So technically you can pass whilst remaining inside the line as long as you’re complying with other road laws. However, since it would almost certainly be unsafe in a motor to overtake anything within the lane (unless it was unfeasibly wide) you would not be driving with due care, so effectively you can’t overtake. You could as a cyclist potentially overtake another cyclist whilst remaining in the lane perfectly legally.
Rule 129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
CygnusX1 wrote:
STILL not true!
You may cross the double white lines to overtake a horse, cyclist etc moving at less than 10mph. Or to turn right, or to pass a stationary object .
The lines are primarily there to prevent passing another car (doing say 25mph in a 30 zone) which would be dangerous due to the width of the road, the sightlines etc but passing a bike doing 10mph can actually be safely achieved under many circumstances.
There’s a road near me (which I ride and drive regularly) that has a lot of double whites but I’ve never had any problems either overtaking bikes when I’m driving or being overtaken by cars when I’m riding. Yes there are certainly occasions where a vehicle has to wait to safely overtake (due to oncoming traffic, sightlines, parked vehicles etc) but there are plenty of very safe overtaking places (for a car passing a bike or horse) even with double whites.
crazy-legs wrote:
I didn’t say it was illegal to pass a bike in a car whilst remaining to the left of the line, just that places where you can do so safely because the lanes are wide enough are few and far between (you seem blessed in living in an area where this is not the case). If you can do so safely then its pefectly legal, if its not safe then you would be driving without due care. Hence the key word effectively.
My example of bike + bike holds for any two road users who can fit side by side in the lane with a safe gap, so horse + bike, bike + motorbike, bike + car even wide load + wide load are all legal as long as the lane is wide enough.
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
No, there isn’t. You haven’t taken account of the natural varying of line that a cyclist will take (you don’t cycle dead straight, ever) and also the wing mirrors of the van. A wing mirror striking the cyclist on the back of the head is likely to kill, even if they’re wearing a helmet (see David Irving case, and also the recent one on the A338 at Fordingbridge – in both cases initial impact was between head and wing mirror). Also, note the position of the oncoming blue car which has moved to the nearside in it’s lane to avoid the van.
Your red line needs to be measured from the right hand side of the white line as well as that demarcates the edge of the carriageway.
Cyclist should be a minimum of 75cm from that edge of the white line, and driver needs to give a further 1.5m clearance from wing mirror to cyclist’s shoulder.
Overall, better for cyclist to take the lane and I’d have done exactly the same thing, including moving to the left as soon as broken line appeared. Only difference would have been that I’d have been in the hedge/ditch as I don’t have those handling skilzz.
What hasn’t been considered here is that he could have so easily been hit by a following vehicle if he’d lost control…
nbrus wrote:
Below is a picture of the section you are refering to … there appears to be loads of room and the van isn’t even on the white lines …
— davel
What? That isn’t “loads of room”. You clearly have never been on a bike.
nbrus wrote:
And you don’t think that, had the cyclist been to the left, the van would also have been further to the left? As anyone who rides knows, the further left you are, the closer the cars come because the drivers don’t feel they have to move out at all.
nbrus wrote:
The cyclist felt he had to be in primary position for his own safety and you weren’t there so I think he’s in a better position to make that judgement.
Pedestrians should always face oncoming traffic when there is no path so this situation would not arise for them.
nbrus wrote:
The driver “had a right to be angry”? Why, because he was he’ll up for oh, at least 30 seconds? What happens if a traffic jam holds him up for an hour? He gets out his RPG launcher?
The cyclist had plenty of
The cyclist had plenty of space to move left and the driver had reason to get angry. I would never ride that close to the centre of the road unlesss it is completely empty of cars.
However this is clearly attempted manslaughter, it is just like if somebody takes a shotgun, shoot at somebody only to miss due to his incapability. And yes I am sure that this driver will not spent a single day in jail and this is a serious court malfunction.
cyclisto wrote:
You can’t attempt manslaughter. Manslaughter is basically attempting to seriously injure someone (GBH) and going too far or otherwise accidentally killing them as a result of negligence or carelessness. You can’t really attempt to do something accidentally. This is dangerous driving, and not some sort of weird “attempting to cause death by dangerous driving” which doesn’t exist.
Your shotgun example is not attempted manslaughter, it’s attempted murder or possibly reckless endagernment or assault with a deadly weapon or something.
nbrus wrote:
Excuse me, but why did he have a right to be angry? As others have pointed out, many things on the road slow you down and are all considered just part of driving, so why should being slowed down by a cyclist suddenly entitle someone to be angry? Your opinion is not welcome because it is completely ignorant. Firstly, bicycles are vehicles, and so are entitled to take the whole lane. Your comparison with pedestians is nonsense because pedestrians are not vehicles. Secondly, do you really think there is little difference in speed between a bicycle going at 20mph and a pedestrian at 3mph? I think you need to take some physics lessons. Thirdly, taking the lane was necessary in this instance because the van was manoeuvring to overtake and would have done so dangerously if the cyclist hadn’t taken primary position.
Looks like someone has been
Looks like someone has been sent back under his bridge.
Rich_cb wrote:
Let us hope it’s a weak bridge with a HGV about to cross it…
Rich_cb wrote:
Think they’ve been hit with the Troll Hammer
https://youtu.be/CJhi43RntJk
lol where’s bikelikebike
lol where’s bikelikebike comments gone, has the ban hammer finally come out.
I think bikelikebike may have
I think bikelikebike may have left the building, ladies and gentlemen (number of posts on this thread have halved overnight)
Not really a fan of banning
Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil’s advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument.
Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum?
If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched.
SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Me neither. But BikeLikeBike is none of those. He is a troll who pretends to like cycling. If he’d just drop the act when stating his no doubt sincerely held view, people would have less of a problem with him.
srchar wrote:
Me neither. But BikeLikeBike is none of those. He is a troll who pretends to like cycling. If he’d just drop the act when stating his no doubt sincerely held view, people would have less of a problem with him.— Mungecrundle
Agreed. There’s a world of difference between being Devils Advocate from outside our echo chamber/filter bubble type thing, and just doing it to p*$$ people off. However many valid arguments or points Blb or even Willo ever made, ultimately they were only really (purely) in it to raise people’s blood pressure IMO.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Not aware of why python got banned, and I will miss him. I thought he contributed to the debate, and I wouldn’t class him as a troll.
But BLB was saying if he was in the van driver’s position he would have acted aggressively towards the cyclist, his exact phrase was “worry him like a sheep dog”. If I recall, Willo got banned not long after some similar posts.
They both (or was it the same person? I’m 95% sure) also displayed classic trolling behaviour.
A cyclist on here said they
A cyclist on here said they would do the bike equivalent of a punishment pass on pedestrians who deliberately daudle in the crosswalk… (but it was ok because they were yobbo pedestrians). I don’t see anyone banning them (nor am I asking for it).
The comments section here can be rabidly anti-car at times (I would say this is different to pro-cycling), but it’s to be expected, I suppose.
I don’t know what precipitated BLB banning – I thought their posts seemed to start from the view that “cyclists are in the way and shouldn’t be surprised that honest upstanding car drivers are frustrated by their prescence on the roads.” Which is a red rag to a bull on a cycling forum. This site does seem to delight in a daily diet of car driver vs cyclist altercations. I’m glad to say I have almost none of these in my life.
I read the Python thread in question, and it was a bunch of unpleasent/agressive name calling with someone else, seemingly continuing on from another thread after a warning a few days before. Python had some good knowledge to share on any number of cycling topics, however (s)he came across as pretty angry at the world, and didn’t display much in the way of tolerance or respect for alternate viewpoints. Their attitude was beyond “snark” IMHO.
MandaiMetric wrote:
http://road.cc/content/forum/222030-anyone-actually-likes-cars-here
46 replies. We’re quite a balanced bunch on road.cc.
MandaiMetric wrote:
SP59 was called a C@@t for stating that people were getting their knickers in a twist over a non-event, that he subsequently was banned for pointing this out and questioning why he was being called a C@@t and proving his point (about the faux offence) clearly didn’t go down well. The person calling him a c@@t was not banned IIRC.
Don’t know how you can state he didn’t respect other people’s viewpoint, responding back in kind to posts as most people on here do with reasoned agrument and to boot never called another poster a C@@t or otherwise. Think you are misreading having a strong opinion backed with a reasoned agrument which was rarely rebuffed to having a reluctance to respect others viewpoints or lack of tolerence, that’s simply wrong.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
lol
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Not wishing to excuse BLB’s behaviour, but he did admit to having Aspergers during the rather bizarre comment thread on the story about Businesses being urged to provide more facilities for cyclists at workplaces, a while back (in which he admitted to having 3 or 4 showers everyday and having to eat his breakfast in different clothes from those he worked in). His ‘comments were possibly more indicitive or a person who has difficulty in interacting with others in a “normal” civil manner, rather than someone going out of his way to Troll.
Mungecrundle wrote:
We’re not fans of banning people either – if we were BikeLikeBike would have gone at least a week ago when people started complaining about him – we did delete some of his more egregious comments at the time. With hindsight we should deleted have his account sooner.
As I’ve said before when either warning people – SuperPython59, or explaining their banning – erm, SuperPython59 again, we don’t moderate our forums or comments sections – we prefer to trust people to engage in civilized debate – or the internet’s rough equivalent therof. We do though have T&Cs regarding racism, sexism, personal abuse, threats, and general unpleasantness which everyone who registers on road.cc site signs up to.
We apply a fairly liberal interpretation to these rules – winding each other up is allowed – this is the internet after all. You’re all adults and most commenters on here seem to be able to give as good as they get while at least keeping within the spirit of our T&Cs if not always the letter.
BUT if we see someone flagrantly flouting those rules or more importantly if people start complaining directly to us we will take action – and as it says in the T&Cs that action will generally be of the account deleting variety – sometimes we’ll give a warning, but if we think someone is a blatant troll we won’t. The vast majority of people who visit road.cc don’t comment but a lot of them do read the comments. Quite often the comments are some of the best bits on a story – very very occasionally though they offend and upset and put people off, which clearly we don’t like.
In this case BikeLikeBike managed to rack up a startling number of complaints in a very short space of time – quite a feat on a Saturday night – so he had to go.
Deleting someone’s account is the nuclear option because (as you’ve seen) it removes all that person’s comments and all the replies to them too, so sorry if some of the threads BikeLikeBike ‘contributed’ to now appear disjointed – and indeed if some of your comments disappeared too. The alternative would be to lock someone out and then go back over their posting history deleting offensive comments but we don’t have the manpower, nor to be frank, the will for that approach – especially if we had to apply it to someone like BikeLikeBike who in the space of the few short weeks he was registered on the site did a LOT of commenting.
Touch wood, but in the eight and a half year’s the site has been going this is something we’ve been forced to do only a handful of times (only two of the people you mention had their accounts deleted) because give or take the odd grumble or snark most people on here manage to rub along together for the vast majority of the time. Not bad really given the size of the site an the number of you who comment.
Tony Farrelly wrote:
One of the things riding a bike has taught me (and it’s taught me many things) is which stuff worth getting bothered about, and stuff that’s not. Penny farthings and full-suspension mountain bikes, not my thing but yeah, moving on. Driving a ten ton truck six inches from my right elbow, I’ll want a conversation.
Some of BLB’s comments on the Michael Mason thread were off colour and distasteful and arguably strayed over the line of acceptability. But the “worrying him like a sheepdog” comment went beyond mere professional trolling and into showing his true colours and advocating aggressive behaviour as shown in the video above. That crossed a line. Not sorry to see his platform removed.
Back on topic, the chap in charge of Vidette would have much better served by something a lot shorter and simpler along the lines of:
Mungecrundle wrote:
I shared your view over Willo mk1. He contributed in other areas – actually seemed to know his way around a bike.
When he came back as BLB, he was just a troll. No value whatsoever, no sympathy for his banning. But I’m sure he’ll be back. Probably as Applecart, who’s also claimed to live in ‘Scandinavia’.
SP59’s banning was sillier: he posted something a bit conspiracy theoryish then Leviathan had a proper wobble at him. Given Tony’s comments, it must’ve generated a load of complaints, too. But I’ve a feeling SP59 won’t stay away too long, probably be back posting about the same stuff, with slightly better manners, if you look hard enough…
Mungecrundle wrote:
For what reason was SP59 banned?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Too much boring helmet chat.
maybe there’s a secret points
maybe there’s a secret points based system for offending remarks?
Just to wind things back a
Just to wind things back a little, I’m really curious as to what charges the driver will be given by the police (if) when action is taken. It could be argued that the driver was attempting assault. Though I strongly doubt such charges would be laid. Given that it was a deliberate move, driving without due care and attention would not be sufficient. Is there even the driving equivalent of an attempted assault? Or would the charge simply be dangerous driving?
OldRidgeback wrote:
whatever the charges it’ll be very interesting to see how a jury the great unwashed motorists deal with it.
On one hand your average motorist will take a dim very of the cyclist positioning (wrongly) but on the other hand the white van man must be Among the most hated motorists on the roads. every motorist will have at least one anecdote about a psychopath in a white van trying to kill them for some perseved slight on there manhood.
OldRidgeback wrote:
You can’t attempt assault, whether you’re in a car or not. Assault broadly means that the victim fears imminent violence. You either succeed or you fail – it’s not really a crime to attempt to be scary if it turns out you actually aren’t.
In this case there is very real and actual physical violence, so we’re well past merely attempting to instil fear. This is dangerous driving for sure, though whether any charges actually get brought remains to be seen.
vonhelmet wrote:
Explains it better
https://www.ukessays.com/ask/what-is-assault-criminal-law-119
I find the way past comments
I find the way past comments (and replies to them) are erased when someone is banned to be odd. Half the old threads he was in now look weird, as they still have non-quote-including replies and replies-to-replies.
It makes it look like commenters are having angry arguments with voices in their heads. Would be over-the-top to call it ‘Stalinist’, but it seems illogical that posts that were allowed at the time have retrospectively been removed.
Dunno what I think about banning.
What he said was exactly what the LBC/Daily Mail crowd think, no point pretending such views don’t exist.
But he almost never responded to any argument against his posts, just came out with a new standard-issue LBC/DM rant or picked out an irrelevant side-point.
I don’t get how dedicated he was to it, though. I wonder if he has a particular personal reason to want to ‘get back at’ cyclists?
I expect he will be back under another name.
I’m sure BLB knows Gail
I’m sure BLB knows Gail Purcell, he turned up and only commented on those threats at the start and had way too much inside information regarding the case.
I didnt think his comments had been too bad on this thread it was just you average daily mail reads views.
He did deserve a ban for some of his gleefully celebration at the motorist right to kill people with impunity on the threads about Michael Mason.
Yeah not sure I want to
Yeah not sure I want to really ‘police’ the road on a cycle by going in the middle of the road to stop being overtaken on double whites. Too dangerous as it is without playing road games. The odds are stacked to highly against you.
There’s not enough space
There’s not enough space there to overtake and it not be an unpleasantly close one for the cyclist. “Share the road” ought to mean “Show consideration and be prepared to hang back a minute till you can overtake in a non-threatening and considerate manner” (and for cyclists ” move across as soon as there’s room to do so”).
There are drivers who do the right thing (including ‘white van men’ – I’ve never found any consistent pattern of good or bad with types of vehicle…well, other than coaches and rich kids in sports cars).
But unfortunately “share the road” is taken by too many drivers to mean “get out of my way, the road belongs to me” (which is an odd interpretation of ‘share’).
The maths would take much
The maths would take much less time to do than the photoshop – poor view from nbrus whichever way you look at it and certainly no justification for hitting someone with several tonnes of metal!
So the solid white line “rule
So the solid white line “rule” is totally meaningless, as I assume any rule regarding the dashed white lines doesn’t say it’s fine to cross them even when it’s unsafe to do so. It’s interesting that the white van man follows a made rule about the solid white lines but thinks nothing of using his vehicle as a weapon, it’s a fun old world
Housecathst wrote:
It’s not meaningless.
There are a small number of specific circumstances in which it is legal to cross a solid white line (on your side).
In all other circumstances it is illegal.
Rich_cb wrote:
So the solid white line “rule” is totally meaningless, as I assume any rule regarding the dashed white lines doesn’t say it’s fine to cross them even when it’s unsafe to do so. It’s interesting that the white van man follows a made rule about the solid white lines but thinks nothing of using his vehicle as a weapon, it’s a fun old world
— Rich_cb It’s not meaningless. There are a small number of specific circumstances in which it is legal to cross a solid white line (on your side). In all other circumstances it is illegal.— Housecathst
That’s not how it reads to me. You can cross if safe and you can cross it to pass stationary vehicles etc. There nothing to suggest these are mutually exclusive.
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less
Housecathst wrote:
You’re reading it wrong.
unless it is safe AND you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road.
So both criteria have to be met.
You can only cross to enter an adjoining property or side road and you can only do that if it is safe.
Regarding solid white lines,
Regarding solid white lines, Ive always treated them with respect. They are their for reason, however when coming across a slow cyclist or horse( bold text for emphasis) if its safe to pass,clear view, no traffic, I will cross over the solid white line.
This is horrific; I don’t
This is horrific; I don’t understand road rage at all. One person in my city was murdered in exactly this situation recently when a driver deliberately hit his back wheel, it was tragic. Driver was charged with murder, finally jailed for causing GBH with intent + voluntary manslaughter, had a tonne of previous (as these people generally do – drugs, violence etc). The driver should blatantly be charged for “operating a motor vehcile negligently so as to endanger life” and hopefully more, at the very least asssault and battery. In the US they have “vehicular assault” – why not in the UK?
Willrod is spot on. Giving
Willrod is spot on. Giving yourself room to manouvre in a close pass situation is an absolute must – something I was taught as a teenager in the 60’s. On motorbikes after I graduated from cycling (now degraduated back)!
When I learnt to drive/ride motorbikes, I was taught to allow AT LEAST 6 feet when overtaking a cyclist and make sure he/she were well behind me before pulling in.
I know this is a very emotive
I know this is a very emotive issue for cyclists, and the driver quite rightly should be charged by the police for a crime….what that crime should be I am not sure of, but it should not be a trivial offence as what was carried out was a deliberate attack on a vulnerable road user.
BUT
There have been many comments on here calling for the employer to be boycotted and for the employer to be held responsible and prosecuted for the acts of their employee. This I find disturbing and frankly uncalled for. The employer has taken the only action that they could in the circumstances, admittedly not before making a somewhat strange statement to the general public.
If that employer had in place suitable training and monitoring for their employees then they have done all that they can, and for them to be persecuted for an unprovoked attack by one of their employees is uncalled for. Employers can only do so much, and from what I can gather from the news reports this was an out of character incident for the employee and it was not like they had a history of such transgressions so the employer could not reasonably be expected to know that such an incident was on the cards.
For those of you calling for the employer to be prosecuted/boycotted etc….. put the boot on the other foot…. Imagine you were an employee of a small ish firm, and it was one of your colleagues who carried out this attack, would you still be calling for your employer to be boycotted? If a smallish firm loses a contract or faces a big reduction in their income….. it is not the employer that will ultimately suffer it is the other employees because they would be the ones who would stand to lose their livelyhoods because the employer might have no other option than to make employees redundant.
craigstitt wrote:
You are missing the point, the recent all party parliamentary group highlighted the inadequacies of the judicial system. So short of encouraging vigilanties, the only reasonable option is to put pressure on the employer in a financial capacity. The employer has the option of mitigating this with some positive action, whatever form that may take.
craigstitt wrote:
But boycotts have long been a tactic in any political dispute (e.g. over Apartheid).
And in any case you can’t force people to use a business they don’t want to.
But most of all, the total amount of business won’t go down, for every lost contract for this firm there will be another firm gaining one, so if this firm makes employees redundant another will be hiring new workers.
None of which is to say I think this company deserves to be boycotted or that such a disparate group as cyclists are remotely capable of staging one that has any effect anyway [I mean, I never want to use the cafe of that Australian bloke who went mental at a cyclist in Richmond…but I can no longer remember who he was or where his cafe was].
I’m purely objecting generally to your general objection to boycotts.
craigstitt wrote:
my view is Id hope any company that handed keys over to an employee to drive around a vehicle with their logo plastered on it, maintained very strong & robust rules with what it expects from those employees and that it was drummed into them they were the publice face representing the company at all times whilst driving that vehicle, and the consequences of breaking those rules were well understood, be that disclipinary or sackings.
and then that completely removes the need for protesting or boycotting, because either the people driving the vehicles follow the rules, and if they dont they are swiftly dealt with by the companies terms of employment.
we only get to a protesting/complaints/boycott stage because that link between how an employee represents their company in public, and how a company deals with it subsequently is so often absent or broken.
craigstitt wrote:
If he went on site and switched the three-phase back on when someone was working on the electrics, or maintained an unsafe working area, or any other of a host of H&S Act violations the employer would be jointly liable. The van he’s driving is a tool to do his job and they’ve got a duty of care to ensure he’s trained appropriately. Its pretty common for tradespeople now not to get paid for travelling time, or given a fixed time to travel to/from a job. Those time constraints are the responsibility of the employer and directly influence their employees’ behaviour. Its about time that the employers of professional drivers (I know this one isn’t) were routinely prosecuted for H&S failures relating to the use of their vehicles. Should also be compulsory that dashcams are fitted – insurance industry can help with this by offering big fleet discounts. As to other employees suffering; in a small firm people tend to know each other and peer influence on behaviour is very strong. I’ve reported colleagues for bad driving in the past and in some industries there is a statutory duty to do so.
I’ve had a few people
I’ve had a few people criticising my rationale in trying to defend the employer…. so my response is this……
Short of having dashcams front rear and interior fitted, and then having someone review every second of driving footage what else would you suggest this employer does? Any employer can make it compulsory for their drivers to undergo regular driving training… but please tell me how exactly that would have prevented this? I worked with an employer where I had to undergo an annual driving test including a full written and practical driving test. That, like the actual driving test, only ensures your driving ability under those conditions at that particular moment in time. I or any one of my colleagues after passing this test could jump in a company vehicle and drive it like we stole it…. but we passed our employers driving test.
Do you go around blaming the DVLA for all of the boy racers causing accidents within 12 months of passing their driving tests? Should the driving instructors/assessors lose their jobs or be prosecuted for the drivers that they teach and pass? Why are you putting such a high burden on the employer and holding them responsible when you, like me, do not know what procedures they have in place for driver training.
And as for people dealing with stress in their personal lives, many people will try and do their best to hide such things from their employers, especially males, as they don’t want to be seen as weak. It is only when something takes that person over the tipping point that it becomes apparent that there is something wrong.
@craigstitt: I get your point
@craigstitt: I get your point, really, but
because that’s how regulation works. Shit travels downhill.
If you accept that current criminal law isn’t stopping people drive like pricks then you try to pressure government to have that aspect changed. But that’s been tried and there’s the right kind of noise, but not a lot’s happened over a loooong time. It does not appear to be enough of a deterrent to stop enough people driving like pricks. That’s a commonly held cyclist viewpoint, anyway.
If you accept that people drive like pricks in company vehicles… well, hello… that opens up a whole new avenue of deterrent. That’s another area of pressure to be applied, either through the regulatory/government angle (corporate liability etc) or the mob rule of social media: on balance, does a company accept that its employees drive like pricks every now and then and weather the social media storm and damage to its reputation?
If this van driver knew there was a chance he’d get sacked as the red mist descended, would he have run the cyclist off the road? The MD of the company used the term ‘made an example’ of him, which suggested that it was an extreme action, a rare occurrence, and that they probably didn’t have a specific ‘drive like a prick’ policy, or one that resulted in sacking. They probably do now… as might other companies whose MDs have read this story.
There’s a raft of rules in place for all companies – you want to have a look at what you can and can’t do with personal data, for example, and what’s coming down that road from the EU next year. When there are rules that bind companies over what their employees can do with a name they scribble on a notepad, it really isn’t too much to expect companies to be bound by rules to have their drivers not drive like pricks when they’re out on business.
craigstitt wrote:
Yes, yes I do. They seem to give licences to anyone these days, and rarely take them away for very long. The test probably could do with being tightened up.
Possibly some of them should lose their jobs, yes. I don’t get the impression it’s a ‘profession’ with particularly high standards or entry-requirements (‘never been caught breaking the law when driving? Then you’re in!’). Wasn’t long ago I saw a driving instructor using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel of his driving school car (parked, but with the engine running, so illegal).
I again suggest you are over-estimating the awesome power of ‘cyclists’ and worrying unnecessarily. I doubt any ‘boycott’ will really amount to anything anyway.
craigstitt wrote:
Agree with some of those points. However, the mindset needs to be changed. For example, look at the Germanwings deliberate air crash last year – attributable to the airline in part for not monitoring the mental health of their employee.
I guess it comes down to this. Why do we have a driving license system? And why is the expected level of competence different based on what vehicle you’re driving? One answer is risk. An HGV driver will cause greater damage and loss of life if he makes an error than a cyclist will. A bus driver is responsible for the lives of 30-70 other people. The post-pass standards expected of drivers holding those licenses should be much higher, as should the penalty for any transgressions. Returning to the public transport angle flying drunk is a criminal offence and will result in a pilot losing their job. Same applies to ship deck officers. Anyone driving a vehicle as part of their job should be subject to higher required standards and penalties and part of that responsibility is the employer’s. For example, for lorry drivers there are statutory requirements around driver hours and the lorries are speed-limited.
Walking in at the nend of
Walking in at the nend of this one, so apologies for repeating what has already been said maybe…
My understanding is that the employer in this instance has published a public apology, has sacked the driver in question and has pledged to put his drivers on a driver awareness course.
What else can the company do for those calling for a boycott to feel appeased?
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Get someone independent to review the management policies regarding travel time and treatment of workers who are having personal problems, because I strongly suspect they discourage ‘wasted travel time’ and are unsympathetic to problems. “One bad apple” is a common excuse, but rarely true.
oldstrath wrote:
Thanks for bringing up this angle. I had not thought of it at all and am still undecided (lack of facts) about whether they deserve a boycott. It was fairly easy for me to take the bad apple bait and forget about these potential issues.
Walking in at the nend of
[quote=oldstrath]
[quote=Jimmy Ray Will]
Walking in at the nend of this one, so apologies for repeating what has already been said maybe…
My understanding is that the employer in this instance has published a public apology, has sacked the driver in question and has pledged to put his drivers on a driver awareness course.
What else can the company do for those calling for a boycott to feel appeased?
Do we know the driver has been sacked? No. We know that the employer has appeared to be apologetic on Twitter and has claimed that the driver has been sacked. Both very quick and very easy verbal ways of defusing a lot of PR shite without actually having to *do* anything. As earlier, at the very least there should be a public message that the company will be cooperating fully with the police.
If you are going to ride your
If you are going to ride your bike like a c*nt then you can expect to attract pr*cks.
Greebo954 wrote:
Every now and then someone makes a comment which makes me wish that we had ‘down arrows’ on this site…
Greebo954 wrote:
Everytime a woman walks down a street at night dressed in a nice outfit she’ll attract rapists… that’s what you’re actually saying right?
You’re utterly, utterly clueless and frankly by sound of it a dangerous deluded human being, get help immediately.
I took this video. This is
I took this video. This is old news now, and we’re done in the courts. If anyone is interested in the boring details I’ve published a blog of what happened, see https://fromthecraggyhills.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/rule-163/
Not boring in the slightest.
Not boring in the slightest. Thanks for taking the time to follow up.
Craggy, thank you for all of
Craggy, thank you for all of that.
It would seem to me that a violent thug decided to use his large vehicle as a weapon in an act of violence.
I do hope your friend regains his confidence and gets back to proper riding soon.