A video shot in Mitcham, South London yesterday shows the jaw-dropping escalation of a road rage dispute between a truck driver and a cyclist. When the cyclist squirts water through the driver’s side window, the flatbed truck is steered towards him in response.
The cyclist takes evasive action and finds himself on the wrong side of the road, out of control, heading towards oncoming traffic which fortunately is travelling slowly enough to stop.
According to Nick Surty, who posted the video to Facebook, the truck driver had cut up the cyclist a mile earlier.
BMW driver “deliberately swerved” at cyclists near Richmond Park
The video begins with the two speaking to each other while stationary on the A237 and the cyclist seemingly pursues the truck when it then pulls off. After a few seconds, he moves to overtake it and as he passes, he sprays the water.
The bike seems to be past the truck when it veers outwards, but presumably somewhat alarmed and perhaps trying to escape, the cyclist’s evasive manoeuvre sends him towards the opposite kerb and he is forced to put a foot down to keep balance.
The cyclist then stops in the road as the truck continues on.
45 thoughts on “London truck driver swerves at cyclist who squirted water at him”
Whilst your addrenallin
Whilst your addrenallin clouds your judgement, you shouldnt have to put up with it and what happened to you isnt right…. there is never any point in getting into an arguement with a moron in a white van/truck/bmw.
Sadly this is a regular
Sadly this is a regular occurance in the Mitcham area, which is on my commute, worst place I’ve cycled so far in London. Poor roads and poor drivers.
Not excusing the cyclist squirting water, not a good move that, but driver should be pulled up for his actions (or over actions).
More depressed by the comments on the posters facebook page, show’s what we’re up against, do these people not have children that cycle??
How tall was the cyclist
How tall was the cyclist wearing the headcam????????
brooksby wrote:
Dashcam in lorry, or someone very tall who keeps their head very very still.
I’ve got to say, that is an
I’ve got to say, that is an incident where the police really need to have a word with the f-, sorry, trucker (didja see what I did there?). Whatever the provocation, I’m pretty sure that you aren’t allowed to try and squash someone.
Play stupid games, win stupid
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No sympathy for the cyclist. Yes, getting cut up sucks, but if you’re going to squirt water through someone’s window then you can’t really be surprised when things escalate from there.
vonhelmet wrote:
Right, so spraying water at someone excuses them trying to kill them with a lorry?
I suppose I do tell my girlfriend that it’s her fault I’m smacking her around the face because she burnt the chips. So fair dos: excellent logic.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Pathetic straw man arguments there – the poster says nothing about excusing anyone.
If you came up to me and squirted a bottle in my face while driving a car, don’t be suprised if you get a punch. irrespective of whether I’ve done something wrong to you before hand, if you escalate something, don’t be suprised if the other person escalates it back. It’s not about right’s or wrongs it’s about human behaviour.
Idiots come in all forms. This one happened to be on a bicycle.
IanMunro wrote:
Totally agree.
We all get a case of “red mist” from time to time and do stupid things to provoke reactions from drivers. When they bite back it is never a proud moment for anyone. It’s not always easy, but the safest action is to have a bit of a swear and cycle on.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Pathetic straw man arguments there – the poster says nothing about excusing anyone.
If you came up to me and squirted a bottle in my face while driving a car, don’t be suprised if you get a punch. irrespective of whether I’ve done something wrong to you before hand, if you escalate something, don’t be suprised if the other person escalates it back. It’s not about right’s or wrongs it’s about human behaviour.
Idiots come in all forms. This one happened to be on a bicycle.
[/quote]
Throwing a punch is totally different to driving a lorry at someone. A landed punch will bring water to the eyes and leave a bruise; driving into someone with a truck will kill them or leave them in a wheelcair.
No excuse for the lorry driver’s behaviour what-so-ever.
Bill H wrote:
I agree with your general point: driving a motorized vehicle at someone is similar to firing a gun or swinging a bladed weapon at them.
But, a punch can definitely kill.
IanMunro wrote:
I would like to say that you’ll probably end up in gaol someday. In any event you sound like a hysterical incompetent that should not be in charge of motorized vehicle. Do us all a favour and take up skydiving.
I certainly don’t make
I certainly don’t make excuses for drivers, but if I was suddenly drenched with water whilst driving, it’s quite possible that I would lose control and swerve a bit. No matter what the provocation, squirting water at a driver while cycling alongside isn’t just stupid, it’s cretinous. The cyclist is lucky to be alive and hopefully they’ve learned something from this. Pity the video doesn’t show the original incident that started the whole thing.
burtthebike wrote:
And that, if he plays it correctly, will be his defence.
Okay at first I was like,
Okay at first I was like, yeah shouldn’t squirt water at drivers (even though I recommended doing the same thing here in jest recently).
Then I saw the video. No fucking excuse at all for trying to murder someone, and that’s exactly what this should be treated as. An attempted murder. What else can swerving a two tonne vehicle at a cyclist into the other side of the road with oncoming traffic be called?
No excuses here at all.
I sympathise with the water squirting. I had a dipstick in a Skoda wagon thing honk at me in a country lane last Sunday as I was gunning it up a hill. Too shattered to squirt him, but I got a good look as he went past and gave him a ‘nice shirt cu*t’.
He sped off. Goofy looking checked shirt muppet. Loved him to have got out.
When your heart rate is in Z4 and Z5 you definitely do respond differently. I get buzzed all the time and shrug it off, but as soon as I start gunning it it’s like I’m begging for a fight to kick off. It’s not a one off thing either, it’s every week. I will bark up the wrong tree one day, for sure. Some real hard nuts around here.
unconstituted wrote:
I get what you’re saying about reacting differently when your blood is up. To put it somewhat technically, you are primed for combat due to being sympathetically activated. You have peripheral adrenaline and central noradrenaline flowing.
I use that hyper-awareness however to ride a tight line as far to the left as possible (funnily enough, I don’t have any major “close pass” incidents to speak of).. and to be hyper-aware with traffic. I go hard, but presume at all times that I have not been seen, and that they cannot judge my speed. If you do that you’ll save yourself a lot of grief.
Having said that, the worst people I have encountered have been other cyclists. Pastel retro helmet wearing bearded hipsters on fixies have screamed absolute blue murder when I’ve undertaken them on a cycle path on my road bike, yelled insults for having a small flashing LED around dusk (?), and just the other day one yelled “nice sunglasses, wanker” (I was wearing clear ones as bug shields when the sun was shining). At all those points I was sorely tempted to dismount and pound their face in, however we don’t do that as sporting gentlemen, do we. In the heat of the moment is always best to let it subside or you’ll regret it massively.
Pair of idiots in my book
Pair of idiots in my book
Cupov wrote:
Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.
marcswales wrote:
Agreed! That driver should not be allowed on the road, if he gets away with this, he’ll do it again some time, and some poor bugger won’t be around to tell the tale.
The cyclist should also face some kind of punishment, but I don’t know what the police can do to him.
It staggers me that on a cycling forum, there are so many people hostile to other cyclists.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Pointing out that the cyclist did something incredibly stupid isn’t being hostile, it’s acknowledging that we all make mistakes, including cyclists. Not all drivers are evil, and not all cyclists are saints, and admitting that isn’t being hostile to cyclists.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
The cyclist in the video is deserving of some hostility to be fair, just not the amount shown to him by the truck driver.
marcswales wrote:
Where was the murder?
Sorry, but if someone squirts something into your face what do you naturally do? Flinch. You put your hands up. You panic. For all anyone here knows that is what could have happened, and sure as hell that is what the driver will say at court if anything were to come of this. What do you think a jury would look at there? What happened down the road is irrelevant, the cyclist has made his way up to this driver, argued with him, and then squirted him. The road looked reasonably straight, I’d bet he could have seen cars coming into his direction when he decided to pull up on his offside and spray him with his bottle.
I don’t know what happened before this, and I don’t know what words were exchanged. What I can quite clearly see, is a cyclist making everyone elses life a bit harder and justifying the poor attitude cyclists receive from other road users, by being overly aggressive. I have near misses in my car, and I have near misses on my bike, and it is RARELY me at fault. But I don’t go chasing people down to have a go and then to assault (yes that is assault by law) them and put myself in an incredibly dangerous position doing so.
To be honest, if I’d have got a job like this as a Police officer, I wouldn’t know where I’d start, I’m fairly confident the truck driver did something stupid to get that as a response from the lad on the bike, but does it justify his behaviour putting himself, and other motorists / pedestrians at danger. If driver had flinched he could have swerved the other way, and hit someone walking past completely innocent. If anyone has ever got water right in their eye they know it hurts and blinds you momentarily, you lose all sense of depth perception and all sorts.
Some motorists are muppets, so are some cyclists. Try not to be one, stay safe, and don’t engage in conflict. If someone has done something dangerous, and you have the chance to tell them politely, do it, if it escalates just move on. If you need to inform the police then do it. Your life is worth more than telling someone they were wrong and proving it.
Sswindells wrote:
Where did someone say there was a murder?
Nah, the natural thing is to swerve your truck at the person after the incident and then rely on one of the legal experts that inhabit the constabulary to come up with a cock-a-mamie defence for you.
Good thing you’re not a police officer. Oh. Wait.
I agree with the above quote. I’d like to add to it though:
* Most police, and indeed most cyclists are actually motorists temporarily out of their cars
* Most police are unable and unwilling to do anything about the routine violence against cyclists. Even in the most egregious clear-cut cases they are pretty much useless and irrelevant to anything approaching justice. In fact, because of the first point, they are a hindrance to it…. so, if you’re going to do something like this expect that the police will be part of your problem.
* Never listen to a police officer tell you what the law is and what is/is not relevant in a particular situation, there are people who have expertise in that after years of study. A police officer’s expertise lies in filling out forms, beating student protestors over the head and arranging emergency medical transport for his fellow motorists when they’re staggering about drunk on the weekend.
Ush wrote:
Ah, I see you’ve hit the nail on the head then with your expert knowledge of Police officers. Is that all of them or just the odd one that you’ve seen in the media.
I try and give a balanced argument each time and offer some insight into each of these when the ” all motorists are potential murderers and nobody cares ” brigade start. Seemingly being forgetful that cyclists too have caused deaths and serious injuries. Some cyclists also break the law, cycle aggressively and dangerously, and give the rest a bad name ( similar to motorists I hasten to add ). Maybe not as much but you know, tar with the same brush and all that.
Concocting defences, no, stating what any reasonable defence would be, yes. Because I didn’t see what happened, nor did you. Have someone unexpectedly squirt water in your face and see how you respond, then do it to someone else, and someone else. See if everyone reacts the same. I’d be surprised.
Did cyclist deserve to nearly die, definitely not, did motorist deserve a face full of water, probably. But only in the sense that some people deserve a face full of water because they’re a tool.
I find it sad that you’d give me a bad rep for my job, yet know nothing about me, my values, or what I’ve done. That when I’ve organised events for cyclists nobody bothers with anything more useful than “stop all the drivers from doing things wrong ” which is easily countered with “stop all the cyclists from doing things wrong too”. There is never anything more constructive.
There are lots of legal eagles on the keyboard, I’m not one. I am experienced enough to tell you what is the law, and what should be realistic in expectations.
Attempt murder, not likely, dangerous driving, possibly depending on what actually happened in that drivers mind.
Im open to constructive discussions, but make me out to be a thug, perhaps this is why cyclists are seen with such hatred.
Sswindells wrote:
just came on to get the longest stacked quote ever ;p
Sswindells wrote:
And immediately you’re right back, marching in lockstep with the Ludicrous Comparison Brigade. Not content with that you have to blow your own trumpet and do a silly dance like this:
Yeah, thanks. You should give up the day job and take silk.
If the driver isn’t done for
If the driver isn’t done for attempted murder then we can assume that, if a car passenger squirts liquid over a cyclist, dragging him out and pushing him under a passing car is perfectly ok.
I got drenched by a fun
I got drenched by a fun-loving car passenger’s water bottle the other week – looked like a car full of 5-a-side guys – but I didn’t swerve or threaten them with death. I suppose I am the reasonable man of the “reasonable man” test, if that case ever went to court.
All these internet judges
All these internet judges spouting bollocks that really comes down to “dont bring a knife to a gun fight” (dont squirt water in someones face and then not expect them to try kill you with their truck).
None of you know what occur previously. None of you have any idea about the driving prior to this incident and if that already put the cyclists life in danger.
But you all be the same lot that moan when a driver gets a slapped wrist after killing a cyclist.
Incidents like this (cyclist reacting rather than sitting abck and reporting it) happen because no-one has any faith in the police and judicial system.
Squirting the driver seems a
Squirting the driver seems a pretty poor idea to me, but I’m not going to judge the cyclist as I don’t know the situation very well.
What really surprises me is that people on here consider squirting with water an escallation relative to the reported previous cutting up. I’m not sure that can really be called an escallation.
In case the swivel-eyed
In case the swivel-eyed brigade missed the memo.
We live in the UK. A modern civilisation. Squirting water does not warrant a murder attempt.
unconstituted wrote:
Indeed. Luckily the modern civilistaion also has a pretty robust mechanism to determine what is a”murder attempt”, or more pertitently to prove it beyond resonable doubt.
No-one knows the context of the dissagreement. All we know is that cyclist had an argument with the driver, then squirted water into the open window, then the van swerved into the center of the road.
No-one, apart from the cyclist and driver, know the context or the intention of the actions depicted. As pointed out already, we do not know if there was intention by the driver, we can suspect but that is irrelevant. As such; a possibility is that the cyclist was trying to get a Darwin award with the driver completely innocent and also vice versa in terms of blame.
I find it bonkers, that in a
that some will simply pass judgement on the party they most emphasis with, in this case you, a cyclist, backing the cyclist, with little information/proof/facts at hand. It is a primal herd mentality.
Yours truly,
The Swivel Eyed Brigade
perpetual121 wrote:
If that’s all you know from watching that video, then you’ve a lot of catching up with the rest of civilisation. Rationality depends on making judgement based on odds. There is no such thing as an absolute known, even in a court case. Even DNA evidence does not provide absolute certainty.
So we look at the video and pass judgement on the odds.
Odds aren’t in favour of the driver randomly swerving. Odds are in favour of it being a retaliation.
And when people, like myself, who have a law degree and know the definition of murder, use the term loosely, it’s not that we actually think this is an attempt by the legal definition, it’s a call to arms for the weak driving legislation that isn’t in line with other criminal offences.
That’s the difference between being on the fence and thinking you’re objective and having a few brain cells about and trusting your judgement.
I totally sympathise with the
I totally sympathise with the cyclist and I often fantasise about what I’d do if I caught up with a driver who’s just given me a punishment pass or similar. However, when I do actually catch up with drivers at lights, it always ends up as either a swearing match or the driver apologising and me accepting their apology.
Squirting water into the face of someone whilst they’re driving is idiotic though – not that it excuses the lorry driver’s reaction. If you’re going to have a barney, I reckon you’re much better off just kicking the vehicle (when stationary) as that really winds up drivers (something about the car being an ego extension).
Where’s the murder attempt?
Where’s the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I’d be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn’t be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what… No jury in the land would convict.
vonhelmet wrote:
People flinch away from the source.
Even lawyers don’t know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.
There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder.
Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.
unconstituted wrote:
Attempted murder is one of the most difficult cases to prove so is rarely charged. And as to odds, well, odds aren’t really relevant because of the burden and standard of proof. What might appear to be a slam dunk evidentially here, because of the presence of video, may not be so. On the one hand there’s an objective viewing of the video, on the other hand all of the circumstances of the case will be taken into account including any defence put forward. We’ll have to wait to see what any charge might be. I’m not awfully confident here and would like to be pleasantly surprised.
bendertherobot wrote:
There’s no chance of this being put as an attempted murder because of existing legislation. You wouldn’t even get to burdens of proof as there wouldn’t be the elements necessary to charge him with it in the first place.
Calls of attempted murder etc aren’t literal, they’re shorthand for, this is what I think this should be, not this is what it is under existing laws.
When I spoke of odds, that was for my own judgement, nothing else. Thought that was clear.
I do think this should be charged as attempted murder. And I would love to see legislation that enabled it to happen. I don’t base my judgement, certainly not ethics or morality on existing laws.
That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but there would have to be a piece of evidence, perhaps from a statement or witness that changed how it’s viewed. People say stupid things on social media, “nearly killed a cyclist today, shame, tried my best”. Stupid stuff like that could indict him.
unconstituted wrote:
Your body might flinch away from the source, but who’s to say what your hands might do and what the vehicle you’re controlling might do?
For the record I am, to an extent, playing devil’s advocate here. IF the driver intentionally swerved then that’s obviously dangerous driving, BUT given the provocation you would never get that charge to stick. Never never never. To which end, the cyclist was an idiot to retaliate like that, because at best he achieves nothing and at worst he ends up dead and the truck driver walks.
vonhelmet wrote:
Oh so the reaction is debatable. That’s good to know.
Provocation as a defender for attempted murder. Wasn’t provocation repealed around 2009, and was it even relevant to attempted murder anyway.
Feel free to to fill me in on the 2009 Act.
Really am not up for spending hours going through it any case law over the weekend when you seem to know already and can give it to me short form.
🙂
unconstituted wrote:
I really don’t care about the specific legalities, because it really doesn’t matter. No jury is going to convict a driver for running over a cyclist, or running a cyclist into the path of oncoming traffic, after the cyclist squirted water through their window. Is that right? Who cares, it literally does not matter. At best, the lawyer argues that the driver did it involuntarily, such was their surprise at a turn of events that would surprise even the most competent driver. At worst, the jury sympathises and thinks “Well, if someone did that to me, I’d run them over”.
Right or wrong, true or false, legal or illegal, it does not matter. No jury will convict if you have done something as stupid as to squirt water through a car window at the driver. Never happen.
vonhelmet wrote:
I’m sure you are right that a jury would excuse the driver, but really ‘ provocation’ – is squirting water at someone, however stupid an act, really enough provocation? If someone did this to me on the street, and in return I clouted him with a hammer, would that be fine as well, or is it only OK if I use a few tonnes of metal and an engine?
If I got into an argument
If I got into an argument like that and some kind of liquid came through my window I’d panic because you you just don’t know what it is and while I am sure the driver deliberately swerved in the footage he has a defence;
Momentary blindness, involuntary action. Even if he killed the cyclist he’d have a defence and that is why they are both twats but no matter what happened before the cyclist is the bigger twat. Why would you put yourself in that position arguing in the centre of the road against a 2.5 ton truck that looks like it’s being driven by a nerdewell who doesn’t give a fuck.
Sometimes you just have breath in, relax and carry on.
The driver performs the
The driver performs the swerve after the cyclists passed him, so I doubt it was a flinch reaction, more a red mist revenge action.
This is not taking any less blame from the idiot cyclist for continuing the original argument.
Both should be charged, the driver will have a more serious charge but only just. Imagine if the cyclist has temporarily blinded The driver and he hit an innocent 3rd party. Bad as each other.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
I think Dan was trying to make the same sort of point (if this was referring to that) and I agree – not knowing what the consequence of squirting someone in charge of a large, moving vehicle in the eyes with something should really make you stop and reconsider. Neither parties come out of this looking particularly good in my mind.